## Facts

- Paul H. Breithaupt, driving a pickup truck in New Mexico, collided with another vehicle, causing three deaths and seriously injuring himself.
- A nearly empty pint bottle of whiskey was found in his glove compartment.
- While Breithaupt lay unconscious in a hospital emergency room, a state patrolman smelled alcohol on his breath and requested a blood sample.
- A physician drew approximately 20 cubic centimeters of blood using a hypodermic needle; testing showed about 0.17% blood-alcohol content.
- At Breithaupt’s involuntary manslaughter trial, the court admitted the blood-test evidence and expert testimony that the result indicated intoxication.
- Breithaupt was convicted and did not pursue a direct appeal.
- He later sought state habeas relief, arguing the nonconsensual blood draw and admission of its results violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; the state court denied relief.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed whether due process required invalidating the conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting blood-test results taken from an unconscious suspect without consent violates Fourteenth Amendment due process under the “shocks the conscience” standard.
2. Whether the claim could succeed on the theory that the blood draw amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment (under then-prevailing doctrine).
3. Whether admission of the blood-test evidence compelled self-incrimination contrary to the Fifth Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment (under then-prevailing doctrine).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief and upheld the conviction.
- The Court held Breithaupt was not deprived of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Under then-controlling precedent, the Fourteenth Amendment did not itself bar state use of evidence even if obtained through an unreasonable search or compelled self-incrimination.
- Applying substantive due process, the Court ruled that a blood draw by medical personnel from an unconscious patient in a hospital was not “conduct that shocks the conscience.”
- Chief Justice Warren, joined by Justices Black and Douglas, dissented; Justice Douglas also filed a separate dissent joined by Justice Black, viewing compelled bodily penetration for evidence as incompatible with due process.

## Legal Principles

- A state evidentiary practice violates substantive due process only when official conduct is so brutal and offensive to human dignity that it “shocks the conscience” and offends a sense of justice.
- A medically routine blood draw performed by a physician or skilled technician in a hospital setting, without violence or struggle, is not conscience-shocking for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.
- Under the incorporation doctrine prevailing at the time, alleged Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violations did not, by themselves, require exclusion of evidence in state criminal proceedings.
- The privilege against self-incrimination protects against compelled testimonial or communicative evidence, not the state’s use of physical evidence obtained from the body.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the admission of a blood-alcohol test taken from an unconscious driver, concluding that a physician-administered blood draw in a hospital is not conduct that violates Fourteenth Amendment due process under the “shocks the conscience” test, even though it involves a physical intrusion to obtain evidence.


Breithaupt v. Abram, Warden, 352 U.S. 432 (1957)