This is huge. Warrantless breathalyzer tests are still ok, but this is the least reliable of the tests measuring blood alcohol. I wonder if this means I'll be looking for a new job again soon. I am currently working in the AZ Dept of Transportation. I assist the hearing officers in license suspension disputes arising from refusals to submit to blood testing in DUI cases. If I do loose my job, please wish me luck in gaining new employment quickly.
However, I do support this decision. Personally, I've always been a bit squigged out when it comes to needles. The idea that a cop might demand I submit a blood test in a suspected DUI (or just to fuck with me) has always freaked me out.
The following is a very long article, so I've only posted in part. You can go to the article at the link to read the whole thing.
SCOTUS Rules DUI Blood Tests Require Search Warrant, But Breath Tests Do Not
DOUG MATACONIS
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled that warrants are required for blood tests in connection with a DUI investigation but that warrantless breath tests are acceptable:
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that police must obtain a warrant before requiring a suspected drunk driver to submit to a blood alcohol test.
In a divided opinion, the court made a distinction between blood tests, which require the piercing of the skin, and breath tests, which it found are not particularly painful, intrusive or embarrassing.
The case arose after several states cracked down on drunk drivers by imposing criminal penalties, in addition to revoking licenses, for those who refuse to undergo testing when stopped by police. The question for the court was whether officers must obtain warrants to perform such tests.
In its opinion, the court tried to find a middle ground in balancing the government’s interest in promoting public safety on roads with individual privacy rights.
“The impact of breath tests on privacy is light, and the need for BAC [blood alcohol content] testing is great,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court’s majority. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer.
In contrast, blood tests are “significantly more intrusive” and do not justify violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. The breath tests, Alito added, are “no more demanding than blowing up a party balloon.”
The court’s decision means that suspected drunk drivers can be arrested for refusing to submit to breath tests, but not for refusing a blood test.
The majority found that states are justified in trying to prevent drunken driving and pointed to statistics that show tougher laws corresponding with a decrease in alcohol-related fatalities from about 25,000 a year in the early 1980s to fewer than 10,000 in 2014. Alcohol consumption, Alito noted, is a leading cause of traffic fatalities and injuries.
During oral arguments in April, the attorney for three drivers from North Dakota and Minnesota said states cannot force people to give up their Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed, finding that warrants should be required for both breath and blood testing.
For the full article and SC Opinion: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/scotus-rules-dui-blood-tests-require-search-warrant-but-breath-tests-do-not/