Supreme Court Limits Drunk Driving Laws

On Thursday, June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a ruling about laws some states have in which requiring suspected drunk drivers to submit to blood alcohol tests without the police having a warrant. They decided that in order for a blood alcohol test to be given, a search warrant for the driver’s blood must be obtained by police.

The Court also ruled that there is no need for a search warrant when it comes to breath tests because these are more common and not as invasive as the blood alcohol tests.

There were three cases in the states of Minnesota and North Dakota in which the constitutionality of the  “implied consent” rule was at issue.  The issue decided by the Court in each case was whether these laws were in direct violation of the Constitution’s forbiddance of warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In each case, the state supreme courts  found the implied consent rules to be Constitutional.

In the three cases heard by the Supreme Court, the lawyers defending the cases made the argument that a warrantless search should be done in unusual circumstances that are not a part of everyday life. They claimed that alcohol testing for drunk driving is a normal function of the law and therefore police officers must obtain warrants before they administer any kind of testing.

The prosecution argued that such a warrant requirement would be unduly burdensome for small localities.   The Supreme Court was not persuaded by the government’s argument.

During their oral arguments, some of the justices made the point that you can get a search warrant in a small town in a matter of minutes by calling the magistrate on duty. Waiting a number of minutes is in no way a burden to the police officer administering the test.

And while they voted in favor of this ruling, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate opinion where they stated that even breath tests should be subject to search warrants. They opined  that there is no governmental circumstance in which an officer having to get a search warrant for a breath test is in any way out of the ordinary or detrimental to law enforcement.

While organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving supported the government’s position that implied consent laws are necessary to ensure public safety, civil liberty groups sided with the Supreme Court on the grounds that one’s Constitutional right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures should not be violated by enacting statutes that criminalize a driver’s refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test.

Defense attorney Karin Riley Porter commented, “The Court’s ruling supports the position of civil liberty activists who favor  keeping the public safe, but demand protection of their constitutional rights.”