Schmerber v. California
Encyclopedia
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757
(1966), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a State may, over the suspect's protest, have a physician extract blood from a person suspected of drunken driving
without violating the suspect's Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution rights. (The Court did not address the Fourth Amendment question because of a previous decision in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957); however, that decision was based on the since over-ruled holding that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule was not incorporated to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.) [This is not correct. The Court DOES address the Fourth Amendment issue. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was not an issue in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957), because the Fourth Amendment was not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment protections yet. It was incorporated at the time of this decision, so the Court ruled that compelled blood draws absent a warrant do not constitute unreasonable search and seizure when the officer has "clear indication" that the procedure will yield evidence of the suspected crime, when the test is a reasonable one that is performed by a physician in a medical environment. The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is not even implicated.]
At the officer's direction a physician took a blood sample. Schmerber objected despite the advice of his counsel to consent thereto. A report of the chemical analysis of the blood, which indicated intoxication, was admitted in evidence over objection at Schmerber's trial for driving while intoxicated. He was convicted and the conviction was affirmed by the appellate court which rejected his claims of denial of due process
, of his privilege against self-incrimination
, of his right to counsel
, and of his right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizure
s.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1966), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a State may, over the suspect's protest, have a physician extract blood from a person suspected of drunken driving
Driving under the influence
Driving under the influence is the act of driving a motor vehicle with blood levels of alcohol in excess of a legal limit...
without violating the suspect's Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution rights. (The Court did not address the Fourth Amendment question because of a previous decision in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957); however, that decision was based on the since over-ruled holding that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule was not incorporated to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.) [This is not correct. The Court DOES address the Fourth Amendment issue. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was not an issue in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957), because the Fourth Amendment was not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment protections yet. It was incorporated at the time of this decision, so the Court ruled that compelled blood draws absent a warrant do not constitute unreasonable search and seizure when the officer has "clear indication" that the procedure will yield evidence of the suspected crime, when the test is a reasonable one that is performed by a physician in a medical environment. The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is not even implicated.]
Background
Armando Schmerber was hospitalized following an accident involving an automobile which he had apparently been driving. A police officer smelled liquor on his breath and noticed other symptoms of drunkenness at the accident scene and at the hospital, placed Schmerber under arrest, and informed him of his Miranda rights.At the officer's direction a physician took a blood sample. Schmerber objected despite the advice of his counsel to consent thereto. A report of the chemical analysis of the blood, which indicated intoxication, was admitted in evidence over objection at Schmerber's trial for driving while intoxicated. He was convicted and the conviction was affirmed by the appellate court which rejected his claims of denial of due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
, of his privilege against self-incrimination
Self-incrimination
Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a crime for which a person can then be prosecuted. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; indirectly, when information of a...
, of his right to counsel
Right to counsel
Right to counsel is currently generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial, allowing for the defendant to be assisted by counsel , and if he cannot afford his own lawyer, requiring that the government should appoint one for him/her, or pay his/her legal expenses...
, and of his right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizure
Search and seizure
Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime.Some countries have...
s.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 384
- Winston v. LeeWinston v. LeeWinston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a compelled surgical intrusion into an individual's body for evidence implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion would be "unreasonable" under the Fourth...
(1985) - Rochin v. CaliforniaRochin v. CaliforniaRochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process...
(1952)