Menu Contact
Robert D. DiDio & AssociatesRobert D. DiDio
& Associates
Call To Schedule An Appointment
917-300-0984
En Español
SERVING NEW YORK WITH INTEGRITY & COMMITMENT

Supreme Court looks at warrant requirements in context of state implied consent laws, P.2

In our previous post, we began looking a United States Supreme Court decision rendered just this week which dealt with the constitutionality of imposing criminal penalties upon drivers who refuse to submit to chemical testing. More specifically, the question was whether the U.S. Constitution requires law enforcement officers to obtain a search warrant to conduct chemical testing on suspected drunk drivers.

The court previously ruled in Missouri v. McNeely (2013) that police are generally required to obtain a search warrant before imposing a blood test on a suspected drunk driver to determine intoxication. In this recent case, the court affirmed that rule in the context of implied consent law, but clarified that law enforcement officers do not need to obtain a warrant in order to take breath tests. 

The rationale for the ruling is largely tied to the issue of privacy—breath testing is much less intrusive than blood and urine testing. Justice Alito, who authored the opinion, said that breath testing does not involve “significant privacy concerns” as urine and blood testing do. The court did acknowledge, however, that a search warrant would not be required in every single case—certain extraordinary circumstances could justify taking blood or urine samples without a warrant.

Privacy is a potentially important issue in criminal investigation and criminal defense cases. For criminal defendants, defending their constitutional right to privacy in searches and seizures can make a significant difference in the outcome of their case. It is important, though, for criminal defendants to always work with an experienced criminal defense or appeals attorney to build the strongest possible case at trial and upon appeal.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

What Our Clients Say

  1. Pedro from Nassau County

    “I was arrested and charged with being the getaway driver during a knife point robbery. The police stopped my car a block away from the robbery with my co-defendant in the car with me. The victim identified my co-defendant to the police within 5 minutes of the robbery...

    - GREAT JOB MR. DiDIO!”
  2. We understand the pain, stress, inconvenience and financial turmoil that can result when you are suffering from a personal injury.

  3. Intellectual property law is complex — if you have an idea you should consult with an experienced attorney before making any decisions.

  4. Póngase en contacto con nosotros para programar una consulta inicial de media hora gratuita con un abogado con experiencia. Hablamos español.

  5. Póngase en contacto con nosotros para programar una consulta inicial de media hora gratuita con un abogado con experiencia. Hablamos español.

  6. Póngase en contacto con nosotros para programar una consulta inicial de media hora gratuita con un abogado con experiencia. Hablamos español.

  7. Póngase en contacto con nosotros para programar una consulta inicial de media hora gratuita con un abogado con experiencia. Hablamos español.

Email Us For A Response

Tell Us About Your Case

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Robert D. DiDio
& Associates

8002 Kew Gardens Road
Suite 307
Kew Gardens, NY 11415

Phone: 917-300-0984
Fax: 718-793-0165
Kew Gardens Law Office Map