## Facts

- Armando Schmerber was arrested for driving under the influence after an automobile accident and was taken to a hospital for treatment.
- A police officer observed signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol and other symptoms.
- The officer advised Schmerber of his right to counsel, right to remain silent, and that statements could be used against him.
- Acting on the officer’s direction and over Schmerber’s refusal (made on advice of counsel), a physician drew a blood sample at the hospital.
- Chemical analysis showed a blood-alcohol level indicating intoxication, and the test results were admitted at trial over objection.
- Schmerber was convicted; state appellate courts affirmed, rejecting constitutional challenges to the blood draw and admission of the results.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonconsensual, medically administered blood draw violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether compelling a blood sample and admitting the analysis violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
3. Whether taking the blood over objection made on counsel’s advice violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
4. Whether the warrantless blood draw constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction (5–4) in an opinion by Justice Brennan.
- The blood draw did not violate due process because it was performed in a medically acceptable manner in a hospital setting.
- The Fifth Amendment was not violated because the compelled blood sample was physical evidence, not testimonial or communicative evidence.
- The Sixth Amendment was not violated; the withdrawal of blood was not barred merely because counsel advised Schmerber to refuse.
- The Fourth Amendment applied to bodily intrusions, but the warrantless blood draw was reasonable given probable cause, exigent circumstances from alcohol dissipation, and the reasonable manner of extraction by a physician.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects against compelled testimonial or communicative evidence, not compelled production of real or physical evidence.
- Compelled bodily intrusions, including blood draws, are searches and seizures governed by the Fourth Amendment.
- A warrantless blood draw may be reasonable when supported by probable cause, justified by exigent circumstances (including imminent loss of evidence), and conducted in a medically appropriate, reasonable manner.
- Due process is not violated by a medically routine blood draw performed in a hospital absent conduct that shocks the conscience.
- The Sixth Amendment does not create a right to prevent physical evidence collection solely because counsel advised the suspect to refuse.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a medically supervised, nonconsensual blood draw taken incident to a lawful DUI arrest was admissible because it involved physical evidence outside the Fifth Amendment’s protection, was not barred by the Sixth Amendment, and was a reasonable Fourth Amendment search under exigent circumstances when performed in a proper medical setting.


Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)