- July 6, 2016 |
- Category: DUI and Courtroom Process
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that could have serious implications on Ohio DUI laws and Ohio DUI defense. The court ruled that police must obtain a search warrant before requiring DUI drivers to take blood tests, but not breath tests, which the court considers less intrusive. The ruling came in three separate cases in which DUI drivers challenged implied consent laws in North Dakota and Minnesota as violating the Constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure.
DUI drivers in all fifty states can have their driver’s license revoked for refusing to submit to chemical tests, however, the new ruling affects laws in the handful of states that go further in imposing criminal penalties for such refusals. Other states that have criminalized a suspected DUI driver’s refusal to take a chemical test include Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia.
In all three cases before the Supreme Court, the DUI defendants argued that warrantless searches should be allowed only in extraordinary circumstances. They said routine drunk driving traffic stops count as ordinary law enforcement functions where traditional privacy rights should apply. Opposing the DUI defendants were state attorneys who called the testing a legitimate condition on the privilege of obtaining a driver’s license and using the state’s roads and highways. State attorneys argued that it was extremely burdensome for police to obtain a warrant every time a DUI driver refused a test.
Writing for the majority of the court, Justice Samuel Alito said breath tests do not implicate significant privacy concerns. Unlike blood tests, blowing into a breathalyzer doesn’t pierce the skin or leave a biological sample in the government’s possession. As a result, DUI breath testing is much less intrusive than DUI blood testing, and as a result, doesn’t require a search warrant. Justice Alito further reasoned that the Supreme Court has previously declined to require a warrant when police search for evidence of a crime by collecting DNA samples with a mouth swab or scraping underneath a suspect’s fingernails.
The state attorneys garnered support from MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), which argued that public safety justifies the tougher DUI laws. Opposing that position, civil liberties groups said states should not criminalize a DUI driver’s assertion of a constitutional right, even if they are guilty of drinking and driving. Adam Vanek, national DUI lawyer for MADD, said his group was pleased with the outcome. Vanek said “that the court recognized public safety concerns outweigh the minimal privacy concerns when it comes to a breath test.” He further stated said MADD was hopeful that the court’s decision would encourage other states to implement similar laws punishing DUI driver’s refusal to take a breath test.
So how does the decision impact Ohio DUI law and Ohio DUI defense? It is currently unclear if the Supreme Court’s decision will have an impact on Ohio DUI/OVI law and Ohio DUI/OVI defense. Ohio Revised Code already makes it a crime for a suspected DUI driver to refuse a breath, blood or urine test if the Ohio DUI driver is under the influence and has a prior Ohio DUI/OVI conviction within 20 years. However, as a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, the legislature can now make it a crime to refuse any breath test, even on a first offense, not just when a suspected DUI driver has a prior DUI/OVI conviction. In a sentence, Ohio DUI laws are likely going to get tougher in the near future.
