Court mulls legality of refusing blood alcohol tests

Lawmakers in the US are reviewing whether it should be considered a crime for suspected drink-drivers to refuse blood alcohol tests without a police warrant.

The law is not currently clear over whether it is a crime to refuse blood alcohol tests without a police warrant

The Supreme Court is examining cases from North Dakota and Minnesota, states which have an ‘implied consent’ law with regards to blood alcohol tests, to see if the refusal to take part in a warrantless blood alcohol test is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches.

Currently, motorists in North Dakota and Minnesota, along with 11 other states, are required to submit blood, breath or urine tests if they are suspected of being intoxicated.

In 2013, the court ruled that, where possible, police should secure a warrant before requesting suspected drink-drivers to provide blood. However, exceptional circumstances where a warrant might not be required should be considered on a case-by-case basis, the court said.

Lawmakers will now consider the case of Danny Birchfield, reports Bloomberg, who was charged for refusing to submit a blood test when he drive his car off the road in Morton County, North Dakota, in 2013.

In addition to Birchfield, the lead appeal in the case, the Supreme Court will consider the cases of one other plantiff from Minnesota, and one from Dakota.

Currently, around 12 states make it a crime to refuse consent to warrantless invasive alcohol testing. State supreme courts in Minnesota and Dakota have already ruled that these laws do not violate constitutional rights.

Earlier this month, US broadcast TV stations lent their support to the 12th annual ‘Project Roadblock’ in a bid to prevent people from drinking alcohol and driving over the Christmas period.