| Schmerber v. California | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued April 25, 1966 Decided June 20, 1966 |
||||||
| Full case name | Armando Schmerber, Petitioner v. State of California | |||||
| Citations | 384 U.S. 757 (more) 86 S.Ct. 1826; 16 L.Ed.2d 908; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1129 |
|||||
| Prior history | Certiorari to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| A State may, over the suspect's protest, have a physician extract blood from a person suspected of drunken driving without violating the suspect' Fifth Amendment 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.] | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Plurality | Brennan, joined by Clark, White | |||||
| Concurrence | Harlan, joined by Stewart | |||||
| Dissent | Warren | |||||
| Dissent | Black, joined by Douglas | |||||
| Dissent | Douglas | |||||
| Dissent | Fortas | |||||
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.]
Contents |
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, of his privilege against self-incrimination, of his right to counsel, and of his right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.
Text of Schmerber v. California is available from: Justia · Findlaw · Food and Drug Administration