Schmerber v. California

Since the Court had made several new decisions related to the issue of blood tests after it initially considered the issue, it decided to hear the case, which began on 25 April 1966. Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan first addressed the due process claim. He pointed out that in a similar case, Breithaupt v. Abram, the Court upheld the conviction even though the doctor took the blood test under police orders while the driver was unconscious and could not refuse the test. Therefore, the Court rejected Schmerber's claim of violated due process, finding no injustice.

Next the Court explored Schmerber's claim of Fifth Amendment right violations. The Fifth Amendment states that no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which Schmerber and his attorney argued included using blood samples and presumably other medical reports against the accused unless they authorize it. The Court disagreed, holding that though the police required Schmerber to submit to the blood test and its results were used against him, the evidence obtained from the blood test and the chemical analysis did not constitute self-incriminating testimony. The Court noted the potential for a constitutional right violation in that the police did not obtain their own evidence, but the Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment did not exclude the body of the accused as evidence. Just as state and federal courts generally agree that this amendment allows compulsory fingerprinting, photographing, measuring, and so forth, so it also can allow tests, according to the majority. The Court concluded that the taking of the blood test never forced Schmerber to give any statement or testimony or personally communicate guilt in any way and hence fell outside of the Fifth Amendment's scope.

Schmerber also felt the police denied him his Sixth Amendment right to legal representation. However, since the Court decided that the police can order blood tests whether or not the accused consent to them, it held that Schmerber's argument that the police denied him his right to counsel did not apply to this situation, because he had no choice and the police were not interrogating him. Consequently, the majority rejected this claim, too.

Justice Brennan then tackled the most complicated claim made by Schmerber: that the blood test violated his Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. The majority argued that although the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, which applied the Fourth Amendment to the state level, protects citizens from unreasonable and arbitrary searches and seizures, it does not prevent the police from ordering blood tests. Because the Court decided that the Fifth Amendment allowed the police to obtain blood tests and to use them as evidence without trespassing on the right not to provide self-incriminating testimony, it reasoned that the Fourth Amendment can allow the police to obtain blood tests in certain circumstances, just as the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search homes in certain circumstances. Furthermore, the Court noted that under California law, the police may arrest suspects without a warrant for felonies, if they have probable cause. In Schmerber's case, the majority agreed that the police had probable cause because he smelled of liquor and displayed other symptoms associated with drunkenness. The Los Angeles police arrested Schmerber in this manner while in he was in the hospital before they ordered the blood test.

Since Schmerber was under arrest at the time of the test, the Court concluded that the police can continue to examine a suspect after arrest, such as when searching for weapons. In the same way, the Court reasoned the police could require a blood test once they arrested a suspect. Finally, the majority argued that since the evidence of Schmerber's intoxication could disappear from his blood in a few hours, the need to preserve the evidence overrode the need to obtain a search warrant, as the Court decided in Preston v. United States.

Nonetheless, the case drew mixed opinions from the justices. Four of them dissented, because the case addressed some difficult legal questions concerning the rights of the accused. Justice Warren felt that the decision broke the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee to due process of law. Justices Black and Douglas contended that the blood test did indeed force Schmerber to provide self-incriminating testimony. In a separate opinion, Justice Douglas also argued that the blood test violated Schmerber's right to due process as well as his right to be free from arbitrary searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Finally, Justice Fortas disagreed because he believed the blood test amounted to self-incriminating evidence and a state cannot extract blood from anyone unless voluntarily allowed under the due process of law clause.