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
- Whether a nonconsensual, medically administered blood draw violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether compelling a blood sample and admitting the analysis violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Whether taking the blood over objection made on counsel’s advice violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- 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.