{"id":21765,"date":"2016-04-20T08:45:19","date_gmt":"2016-04-20T13:45:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21765"},"modified":"2016-04-20T08:45:19","modified_gmt":"2016-04-20T13:45:19","slug":"reason-com-today-at-scotus-warrantless-drunk-driving-tests-and-the-fourth-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21765","title":{"rendered":"reason.com: Today at SCOTUS: Warrantless Drunk Driving Tests and the Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

reason.com: Today at SCOTUS: Warrantless Drunk Driving Tests and the Fourth Amendment<\/a> by Damon Root:<\/p>\n

Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in three consolidated cases that pose the following question: “Whether, in the absence of a warrant, a State may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.”<\/p>\n

At issue in the consolidated cases of Birchfield v. North Dakota, Beylund v. Levi, and Bernard v. Minnesota, are state laws from North Dakota and Minnesota that impose criminal penalties on suspected drunk drivers who refuse to submit to warrantless chemical DUI tests. According to North Dakota, the state has a legitimate interest in combatting drunk driving and that legitimate interest “far outweigh[s] the limited interference with an arrestee’s right to require the police to secure a warrant before conducting the search. The right to demand that police secure a warrant here is at the periphery of the Fourth Amendment.” Minnesota offers a related argument, telling the Court that its law “is constitutional as applied to breath tests because a warrantless breath test administered to a suspect lawfully arrested for drunk driving would be permissible pursuant to the search incident to arrest doctrine.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

reason.com: Today at SCOTUS: Warrantless Drunk Driving Tests and the Fourth Amendment by Damon Root: Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in three consolidated cases that pose the following question: “Whether, in the absence of a warrant, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55,83],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drug-testing","category-scotus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21765","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21765"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21765\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21766,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21765\/revisions\/21766"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21765"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}