Articles Posted in DUI Stops

Citing the “grisly toll on the Nation’s roads,” and by opinion dated June 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not required to obtain a warrant in order to obtain a breath sample.  The same is not true of blood test where warrants are still required.  Fundamental to the Court’s analysis is their finding that breath testing is non-invasive, and can therefore be conducted as a “search incident to arrest.”  The name of the case is Birchfield v. North Dakota.

The Court’s opinion begins with a brief history of drunk driving and the evolution of breath testing to its current incarnation – infrared spectroscopy.  Included in this history is the fact that the Nation’s first “legal limit” was 0.15%.  The legal limit was later dropped to 0.10% and then dropped again to the current National standard of 0.08%.

The Birchfield opinion embraces and discussed three separate but related cases as follows:

With cell phones being ever present in our society, it is becoming increasingly common for people to use their cell phones to report a Michigan driver they think might be intoxicated.  If the police officer does not independently observe a traffic violation, then there may be a basis to challenge the stop. However these DUI cases are very fact-specific, and you should always have a DUI lawyer look at your case before drawing any conclusions.

A recent case will undoubtedly have an impact on how your DUI lawyer reviews your case is Navarette v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1683, 188 L.Ed.2d 680 (2014) a 911 caller claimed that they had just been run off the road by a pickup truck.  The tipster identified the truck, the license number, and where the incident had occurred. A BOL (be on the lookout) radio message went out, and police went in pursuit of the truck.  An officer pulled the truck over even though the officer failed to observe any bad driving of his own. During the traffic stop the police smelled marijuana, and upon searching the truck found four large, closed bags of marijuana in the truck bed.  Navarette and his brother who was with him were charged with illegal possession and transport of marijuana.  Before trial, their lawyer attempted to have the evidence suppressed on the basis that the officers had not corroborated the anonymous tip.

In a close decision the USSC found that the stop, based only on the 911 call, was lawful. Justice Thomas wrote in his majority opinion “under the totality of the circumstances, we find the indicia of reliability in this case sufficient to provide the officer with reasonable suspicion that the driver of the reported vehicle had run another vehicle off the road.” In a sort of ironic twist, the very fact that the call was a 911 call added to its reliably. The Court’s analysis and finding of reliability was based in part on the fact the 911 system uses several technological and regulatory features that safeguard against making false reports with immunity. These safeguards include the fact that 911 calls can be recorded and FCC regulations require the number of the 911 caller to be passed on to the dispatcher.  Thus, this technology allows police to identify 911 callers, and go after them for false reports.