Ohio residents may be interested in learning that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases from Minnesota and North Dakota regarding blood testing in the absence of warrants. In those two states, refusing to submit to a blood test is grounds for a separate criminal offense.
Challengers in both states are arguing that charging additional criminal offenses for blood test refusals in DUI cases is unconstitutional. They are arguing that conducting blood tests without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment requirements regarding reasonable searches and exceeds what police are allowed to do in the absence of warrants.
The appellant in the North Dakota case is a man who ran off of the road in 2013. Officers asked him to submit to a blood test after he reportedly failed a breath test. The man refused and was charged with an additional criminal offense for his refusal. He pled guilty, but he reserved his right to file an appeal of the decision. The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood testing was necessary to prevent drunk driving. The U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled in 2013 that warrants for blood tests were necessary for most criminal matters.
When a person is charged with a DUI, they may want to get help from a criminal defense attorney who defends clients against drunk driving allegations. An attorney may be able to find problems with how the evidence was collected after reviewing the testing and any videos. After reviewing the evidence, legal counsel may then be in a better position to defend a client.