Schmerber v. California

rdf:langString Schmerber v. California

rdf:langString

rdf:langString Armando Schmerber, Petitioner v. State of California

rdf:langString Douglas

rdf:langString Warren

rdf:langString Black

rdf:langString Fortas

rdf:langString Douglas

rdf:langString Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White

rdf:langString Certiorari to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

rdf:langString right

rdf:langString Schmerber v. California,

rdf:langString Armando Schmerber, Petitioner v. State of California

rdf:langString Schmerber v. California

rdf:langString Brennan

rdf:langString "I think it follows if this Court holds that it's proper to withdraw the blood that is certainly just as proper to inject the Nalline if we're looking at the welfare of society and how we want to keep narcotic users off the street."

rdf:langString —Thomas M. McGurrin, counsel for Armando Schmerber, during oral argument at the Supreme Court of the United States

rdf:langString Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution. In a 5–4 opinion, the Court held that forced extraction and analysis of a blood sample is not compelled testimony; therefore, it does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court also held that intrusions into the human body ordinarily require a search warrant. However, the Court ruled that the involuntary, warrantless blood sample taken in this case was justified under the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception because evidence of blood alcohol would be destroyed by the body's natural metabolic processes if the officers were to wait for a warrant. In 2013, the Supreme Court clarified in Missouri v. McNeely that the natural metabolism of alcohol in the bloodstream is not a per se exigency that would always justify warrantless blood tests of individuals suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. In the years following the Court's decision in Schmerber, many legal scholars feared the ruling would be used to limit civil liberties. Other scholars, including Nita A. Farahany, Benjamin Holley, and John G. New, have suggested courts may use the ruling in Schmerber to justify the use of mind reading devices against criminal suspects. Because the Court's ruling in Schmerber prohibited the use of warrantless blood tests in most circumstances, some commentators argue that the decision was responsible for the proliferation of breathalyzers to test for alcohol and urine analyses to test for controlled substances in criminal investigations.

rdf:langString Harlan

rdf:langString Stewart