Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches. In a 5–4 opinion, the Court held that forced extraction and analysis of a blood sample is not compelled testimony.
About Schmerber v. California in brief
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches. 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. 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. Some commentators argue that the decision was responsible for the proliferation of breathalyzers to test for alcohol and urine analyses in criminal investigations. Other scholars, including Nita A. Farahany, Benjamin Holley, and John G. New, have suggested courts may use the ruling in Schmermer to justify the use of mind reading devices against criminal suspects, such as mind-readers. The Court ruled 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. The court declined to incorporate a broad exclusionary rule for all Fourth Amendment violations. Until the twentieth century, courts would admit evidence at trial even if it was seized in violation of the Second Amendment. By the middle of the century, many state courts had crafted their own exclusionary rules. In 1955, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule applied in California because it was necessary to deter constitutional violations by law.
In 1961, the United States v. Mapp v. Ohio was the first state to hold in 1961 that the rule was incorporated to the states. On the night of November 12, 1964, Armando Schmerbers and a passenger were driving at a tavern and bowling alley in San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles. When they arrived at the hospital, they asked to submit a sample of his blood but they refused. Although they did not possess a warrant for the search, they were taken to a hospital for treatment and taken to the hospital for a treatment. Schmerbs and his companion were injured in the crash and were not allowed to leave the hospital until the next day. In the years following the Court’s decision, many legal scholars feared the ruling would be used to limit civil liberties. The Supreme Court held in Breithaupt v. Abram that involuntary blood samples neither “shocked the conscience” nor violated substantive due process. In 1957, the court held that the blood samples were justified, in part, because “modern community living requires modern scientific methods of crime detection.” The Court also mentioned in dicta that involuntary Blood samples may violate the constitution if officers do not provide “every proper medical precaution’ to the accused. In 2013, the High Court clarified that the involuntary blood sample taken in this case was justified under the 4th Amendment’s exigent circumstances exception.
You want to know more about Schmerber v. California?
This page is based on the article Schmerber v. California published in Wikipedia (as of Nov. 04, 2020) and was automatically summarized using artificial intelligence.
