Can warrantless breath and blood tests conducted during drunk driving arrests be justified under established Fourth Amendment exceptions?

Danny Birchfield, William Robert Bernard Jr., and Steve Michael Beylund were arrested in separate incidents for drunk driving. Birchfield refused a blood test and was convicted under North Dakota law for test refusal. Bernard refused a breath test and was convicted under Minnesota law for test refusal. Beylund consented to a blood test after being informed refusal was a crime, resulting in his license suspension based on the test results.

The three cases were consolidated to challenge state laws that criminalize refusal of warrantless blood alcohol concentration (BAC) tests following drunk driving arrests. These laws in North Dakota and Minnesota made it a criminal offense to refuse BAC testing when arrested for driving under the influence, even without a warrant.

Birchfield, Beylund, and Bernard were separately charged with drunk driving offenses in North Dakota and Minnesota. The defendants challenged the constitutionality of warrantless breath and blood tests conducted incident to their arrests under their respective states' implied consent laws.

Birchfield and Beylund's cases proceeded through the North Dakota court system, ultimately reaching the North Dakota Supreme Court. The state's highest court upheld North Dakota's implied consent law.

Similarly, Bernard's case made its way through the Minnesota courts, with the Minnesota Supreme Court ultimately upholding that state's implied consent law.

Following these state supreme court decisions, the defendants sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the three cases to address the broader constitutional question regarding warrantless breath and blood tests in drunk driving arrests.

(Alito, J.)

Yes. Warrantless breath tests incident to drunk driving arrests are permissible under the Fourth Amendment, but warrantless blood tests are not. Breath tests do not significantly infringe on privacy interests and are minimally intrusive, making them a reasonable search incident to arrest. The limited physical intrusion and brief nature of breath tests align with legitimate law enforcement needs without unduly burdening individual rights. Blood tests, however, are more invasive and implicate heightened privacy concerns, requiring a warrant absent exigent circumstances. The physical intrusion of piercing the skin and extracting a part of the body, coupled with the potential for preserving samples containing extensive personal information, elevates blood tests beyond the scope of permissible warrantless searches incident to arrest. Implied consent laws imposing criminal penalties for refusing breath tests are constitutional, as they are reasonably tailored to the government's interest in preventing drunk driving without excessively burdening Fourth Amendment rights. However, implied consent laws criminalizing refusal of blood tests violate the Fourth Amendment by impermissibly burdening the right to be free from unreasonable searches. The distinction between breath and blood tests reflects a careful balancing of individual privacy interests against legitimate law enforcement needs, recognizing that less intrusive means can often satisfy the government's objectives in drunk driving cases.

Concurrence/Dissent (Sotomayor, J.) Warrantless breath tests should not be permitted under the search-incident-to-arrest exception. The government failed to demonstrate that obtaining a warrant for breath tests would significantly hamper law enforcement interests. This overly broad application of the exception undermines Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. The majority's reasoning opens the door to further erosion of privacy rights in future cases involving minimally invasive searches.

Concurrence/Dissent (Thomas, J.) Both warrantless breath and blood tests should be constitutional under the exigent circumstances exception due to the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood. The majority's distinction between breath and blood tests is artificial and unsupported by the Fourth Amendment. The exigent circumstances doctrine provides a more appropriate framework for analyzing these searches, as it accounts for the time-sensitive nature of blood alcohol evidence. This approach would provide clearer guidance to law enforcement while still protecting individual rights.