Birchfield v. North Dakota Oral Argument
2016-04-25T23:31:11-04:00https://ximage.c-spanvideo.org/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwaWN0dXJlcy5jLXNwYW52aWRlby5vcmciLCJrZXkiOiJGaWxlc1wvMDE4XC8yMDE2MDQyNTIzMzE0NzAwMl9oZC5qcGciLCJlZGl0cyI6eyJyZXNpemUiOnsiZml0IjoiY292ZXIiLCJoZWlnaHQiOjUwNn19fQ==The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Birchfield v. North Dakota, docket 14-1468. The case concerns whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it illegal for a driver to refuse to take a blood, breath, or urine alcohol test. This case involved three cases that were consolidated. Two of the challenges came from North Dakota and one from Minnesota. In those states, 10 other states, and the federal government, there is what’s called an “implied consent” law. Under it, if a police officer requests consent for such a test and the driver says no he or she can be charged with a crime.
On June 23, 2016, the court ruled that police must get a search warrant before requiring a suspected drunk driver to take a blood alcohol test, but not a warrant for a breath test. The court said that the refusal to take a blood alcohol test cannot result in criminal penalties, thus affecting the laws in 11 states currently criminalizing these refusals. Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-1.
On June 23, 2016, the court ruled that police must get a search warrant before requiring a suspected drunk driver to take a blood alcohol test, but not a warrant for a breath test. The court said that the refusal to take a blood alcohol test cannot result in criminal penalties, thus affecting the laws in 11 states currently criminalizing these refusals. Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-1.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Birchfield v. North Dakota, docket 14-1468. The case concerns whether, in the absence of a warrant,… read more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Birchfield v. North Dakota, docket 14-1468. The case concerns whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it illegal for a driver to refuse to take a blood, breath, or urine alcohol test. This case involved three cases that were consolidated. Two of the challenges came from North Dakota and one from Minnesota. In those states, 10 other states, and the federal government, there is what’s called an “implied consent” law. Under it, if a police officer requests consent for such a test and the driver says no he or she can be charged with a crime.
On June 23, 2016, the court ruled that police must get a search warrant before requiring a suspected drunk driver to take a blood alcohol test, but not a warrant for a breath test. The court said that the refusal to take a blood alcohol test cannot result in criminal penalties, thus affecting the laws in 11 states currently criminalizing these refusals. Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-1. close
People in this video
- Samuel A. Alito Jr. Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Stephen G. Breyer Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
-
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Elena Kagan Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
-
- Anthony M. Kennedy Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
-
Thomas R. McCarthy Attorney
- John G. Roberts Jr. Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court
-
Charles A. Rothfeld Attorney
- Sonia Sotomayor Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
- Clarence Thomas Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court
Hosting Organization
Purchase a Download
Birchfield v. North Dakota Oral Argument
-
MP4 video - Standard
- Price:
- $6.99
-
MP3 audio - Standard
- Price:
- $0.99
Related Video
-
United States v. Texas Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Texas, docket number 15-674, a case concerning President Obama…
-
McDonnell v. U.S. Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in McDonnell v. United States, docket number 15-474, a case concerning what kinds …
-
Betterman v. Montana Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Betterman v. Montana, docket number 14-1457, which concerns whether the constit…
-
Zubik v. Burwell Oral Argument
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Zubik v. Burwell, docket number 14-1418, seven consolidated cases challenging w…