South Dakota v. Neville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1983 United States Supreme Court case

South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prosecutors may use a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test as evidence of guilt and that the introduction of such evidence at trial does not violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.[1]

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Dakota_v._Neville&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

In _Schmerber v. California _ (1966), the Supreme Court held that the extraction and analysis of blood samples does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.[2] However, in the years following Schmerber, a split of authority emerged in state courts with regard to whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self incrimination prohibited the use of a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood test as evidence of guilt.[3] South Dakota , for example, passed a statute that stated a person's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test “may be admissible into evidence at the trial.”[4]

Arrest of Mason Henry Neville

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Dakota_v._Neville&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Arrest of Mason Henry Neville")
]

On the evening of July 19, 1980, Mason Henry Neville was stopped by two Madison, South Dakota police officers after they observed Neville's car drive past a stop sign without stopping.[5] When officers asked Neville to step out of his car, he "staggered and fell against the car to support himself."[6] After failing several field sobriety tests , officers placed Neville under arrest.[7] Officers asked Neville if he would submit to a blood-alcohol test, but he refused, stating “I'm too drunk, I won't pass the test.”[7]

At trial, Neville filed a motion to suppress all evidence associated with his refusal to take a blood alcohol test on the grounds that it violated his privilege against self incrimination.[8] The Supreme Court of South Dakota agreed that admitting evidence of Neville's refusal to take the test violated his privilege against self incrimination,[9] and state prosecutors appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[10]

Opinion of the Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Dakota_v._Neville&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")
]

In a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors could use a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood test as evidence of guilt, and the introduction of this evidence at trial does not violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.[1] Writing for the Court's majority, Justice O'Connor concluded that "the state did not directly compel respondent to refuse the test."[11] Additionally, Justice O'Connor wrote that a "simple blood-alcohol test is so safe, painless, and commonplace" that a suspect would not feel coerced to refuse the test.[11]

Justice O'Connor also ruled that suspects who refuse to submit to a blood test are not entitled to Miranda warnings about the consequences of refusing the test because officers made it clear that a refusal to submit to a test may lead to "adverse consequences."[12] Justice Stevens , joined by Justice Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which they argued that the Court in Schmerber intended to adopt a broad and liberal interpretation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.[13]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Dakota_v._Neville&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: References")
]

1 2 South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 561-62 (1983).
↑ _Schmerber v. California _, 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966).
↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 558 ("we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict").
↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 556 (citing S.D.Comp.Laws Ann. § 32–23–10.1).
↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 554; see also Brief for Petitioner, South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983).
↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 554.
1 2 Neville, 459 U.S. at 555.
↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 556.
↑ State v. Neville, 312 N.W.2d 723 (S.D. 1981).
↑ South Dakota v. Neville, 456 U.S. 971 (1982) (granting certiorari).
1 2 Neville, 459 U.S. at 562-63.
↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 566.
↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 570 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Dakota_v._Neville&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: External links")
]

Text of South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Dakota_v._Neville&oldid=1362307366 "

Categories :

United States Supreme Court cases in 1983
United States Supreme Court cases
[United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Supreme_Cou

…