The good part is, it does uphold the 4th. The bad part is, if cops rely more on breath tests (which can be unreliable, depending on how often the machines are calibrated), a lot of offenders will get off and will be driving around our streets. As the victim of a hit-and-run, I’m not happy about that:
A Supreme Court decision on June 23, 2016, is expected to have a big impact on the way Virginia drunk driving cases are handled. Legal experts believe that the high court’s Birchfield v. North Dakota ruling, where they decided that a blood draw was invasive to a person’s body and that police officers need to obtain a search warrant before requiring a person to participate in a blood test, is going to force officers to rely more prominently on breath tests when dealing with potential DUI cases.
The high court’s decision will also impact state legislators, who have been given the task of revising a section of the state code that makes it a criminal act when a multiple time offender refuses a blood test after they have been suspected of driving under the influence. While the Birchfield v. North Dakota ruling does still allow the prosecution to use blood tests as DUI evidence, it is no longer constitutional to criminalize someone for refusing them and makes it tougher in most situations to force a blood test on a potential suspect.
It is important to note that law enforcement and other authorities can have a magistrate sign a search warrant for a blood draw, especially under circumstances where they believe that a DUI suspect is under the influence of illegal substances. However, the fact remains that Virginia’s refusal statute is now rendered unenforceable after the high court’s ruling, and the General Assembly will have to come together and make sure that the state’s laws are in conformity with the guidelines dictated by the Supreme Court.
Even though the high court’s ruling was primarily about determining that a person’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure is violated by the use of a compelled blood test, there are other things that Virginia law enforcement can take away from this decision that deserve some attention. For example, the Birchfield v. North Dakota ruling recognizes that a breath alcohol test can be used as a search incident before a lawful arrest. This means that the police can give a breath test anywhere they make a DUI-type arrest and not just when they pull people over on the road.
By establishing this precedent, the high court is going beyond the notion of implied consent, which says that a person voluntarily agrees to a breath test when they get behind the wheel of an automobile on the open road. Bedford County prosecutor John Wheelock believes that this part of the Supreme Court’s decision is noteworthy because it expands the use of breath tests to cover a variety of different circumstances and makes obtaining blood alcohol content evidence (BAC) “more difficult and easier at the same time.”
There is no question that the high court’s Birchfield v. North Dakota ruling means that Virginia will have to end its practice of handing out criminal penalties to individuals who repeatedly refuse a blood test when pulled over by law enforcement. However, it is up to the General Assembly to come together and pass legislation that will allow the state to take advantage of the search incident breath test precedent that was set by the high court.
Attorney Angie DiPietro commented, “It’s very refreshing to see the Court uphold the Fourth Amendment- The trend has certainly seemed to be an erosion of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Any time the Court rules in favor of protections, it is a victory for citizens.”
Field sobriety just died the death it has always deserved.