Schmerber v. California

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1966 United States Supreme Court case

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), is a landmark

United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment 's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

In a 5–4 opinion, the Court held that forced extraction and analysis of a blood sample is not compelled testimony; therefore, it does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court also held that intrusions into the human body ordinarily require a search warrant. However, the Court ruled that the involuntary, warrantless blood sample taken in this case was justified under the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception because evidence of blood alcohol would be destroyed by the body's natural metabolic processes if the officers were to wait for a warrant. In 2013, the Supreme Court clarified in _Missouri v. McNeely _ that the natural metabolism of alcohol in the bloodstream is not a _per se _ exigency that would always justify warrantless blood tests of individuals suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.

In the years following the Court's decision in Schmerber, many legal scholars feared the ruling would be used to limit civil liberties . Other scholars, including Nita A. Farahany, Benjamin Holley, and John G. New, have suggested courts may use the ruling in Schmerber to justify the use of mind reading devices against criminal suspects. Because the Court's ruling in Schmerber prohibited the use of warrantless blood tests in most circumstances, some commentators argue that the decision was responsible for the proliferation of breathalyzers to test for alcohol and urine analyses to test for controlled substances in criminal investigations.

Background

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

Warrantless searches of the human body

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schmerber_v._California&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: .mw-parser-output .vanchor>:target~.vanchor-text{background-color:#ebf4ff}@media screen{html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .vanchor>:target~.vanchor-text{background-color:#0f4dc9}}@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .vanchor>:target~.vanchor-text{background-color:#0f4dc9}}Warrantless searches of the human body")
]

See also: Rochin v. California and Breithaupt v. Abram

In the 1950s, the Supreme Court of the United States issued two key rulings clarifying the constitutionality of physical intrusions into the human body by police and other government agents. In _Rochin v. California _, police officers broke into the home of an individual suspected of selling narcotics and observed him place several small objects into his mouth. Officers were unable to force his mouth open, so they transported him to a local hospital where his stomach was pumped against his will. A unanimous Supreme Court held the involuntary stomach pump was an unlawful violation of substantive due process because it "shocked the conscience", and was so "brutal" and "offensive" that it did not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency. In 1957, the Court held in _Breithaupt v. Abram _ that involuntary blood samples "taken by a skilled technician" neither "shocked the conscience" nor violated substantive due process . In Breithaupt, police took a blood sample from a patient suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol while he lay unconscious in a hospital. The Court held that the blood samples were justified, in part, because "modern community living requires modern scientific methods of crime detection." Additionally, the Court mentioned in dicta that involuntary blood samples may violate the constitution if officers do not provide "every proper medical precaution" to the accused.

Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schmerber_v._California&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule")
]

Until the twentieth century, courts would admit evidence at trial even if it was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Although the Supreme Court developed an exclusionary rule for federal cases in _Weeks v. United States _ and _Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States _, the Court held in 1949 that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states . In Rochin, the Court held that evidence obtained in a manner that "shocks the conscience" must be excluded in criminal prosecutions but the court declined to incorporate a broad exclusionary rule for all Fourth Amendment violations. By the middle of the twentieth century, many state courts had crafted their own exclusionary rules. In 1955, the California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Cahan that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule applied in California because it was necessary to deter constitutional violations by law enforcement. In 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States relied upon Cahan to hold in _Mapp v. Ohio _ that the exclusionary rule was incorporated to the states.

Arrest and prosecution

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schmerber_v._California&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Arrest and prosecution")
]

On the night of November 12, 1964, Armando Schmerber and a passenger were driving home after drinking at a tavern and bowling alley in the San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles, California , when their car skidded off the road and struck a tree. Schmerber and his companion were injured in the crash and taken to a hospital for treatment. When investigating police officers arrived at the hospital, they asked Schmerber to submit a sample of his blood, but Schmerber refused. Although they did not possess a search warrant , officers instructed attending physicians to take a blood sample from Schmerber. The blood sample indicated that Schmerber was intoxicated, and he was placed under arrest. The blood sample was ultimately admitted into evidence at trial, and Schmerber was convicted for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquors. Schmerber objected to the admissibility of the blood sample, claiming that the p

…