Document: 384 U.S. 757 86 S.Ct. 1826 16 L.Ed.2d 908 Armando SCHMERBER, Petitioner,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 658. Argued April 25, 1966. Decided June 20, Thomas M. McGurrin, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioner. Edward L. Davenport, Los Angeles, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted in Angeles Municipal Court criminal offense driving an automobile while under influence intoxicating liquor.1 He had been arrested at a hospital receiving treatment injuries suffered accident involving that he apparently driving.2 At direction police officer, blood sample then withdrawn from petitioner's body by physician hospital. The chemical analysis this revealed percent weight alcohol his time which indicated intoxication, and report admitted evidence trial. objected to receipt on ground despite refusal, advice counsel, consent test. contended circumstance withdrawal admission denied him due process law Fourteenth Amendment, as well specific guarantees Bill Rights secured against States Amendment: privilege self-incrimination Fifth Amendment; right counsel Sixth not be subjected unreasonable searches seizures violation Fourth Amendment. Appellate Department California Superior rejected these contentions affirmed conviction.3 In view constitutional decisions since we last considered issues Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 432, 77 408, 448—see Escobedo State Illinois, 378 478, 84 1758, 12 977; Malloy Hogan, 1, 1489, 653, Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081—we granted certiorari. 382 971, 542, 15 464. We affirm. I. 2 THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE CLAIM. 3 also case officers caused driver involved accident, there ample justification officer's conclusion alcohol. There, here, extraction made simple, medically acceptable manner environment. however, unconscious hence no opportunity object procedure. conviction resulting use test evidence, holding such circumstances did offend 'that 'sense justice' spoke Rochin (People of) California, 1952, 342 165, 72 205, 96 L.Ed. 183.' U.S., 435, 410. thus requires rejection argument, nothing case4 or supervening events persuades us aspect should overruled. II. 4 PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAIM 5 summarily argument state violated Amendment any person 'be compelled witness himself,' citing Twining New Jersey, 211 78, 29 14, 53 97. But case, protections do embrace privilege, has succeeded 8, 1493, 653. held '(t)he secures invasion same federal infringement—the remain silent unless chooses speak unfettered exercise own will, suffer penalty * silence.' therefore must now decide whether privilege. hold protects accused only being testify himself, otherwise provide with testimonial communicative nature,5 question involve compulsion ends. It could requiring petitioner submit attempt discover might used prosecute offense. submitted after officer objection directed proceed. administer over constituted purposes critical question, then, is 'to himself.'6 7 If scope coincided complex values it helps protect, obliged conclude violated. Miranda Arizona, 436, 460, 1602, 1620, 694, 715, said interests protected privilege: 'All policies point one overriding thought: foundation underlying respect government federal—must accord dignity integrity its citizens. To maintain 'fair state-individual balance,' require shoulder entire load,' inviolability human personality, our accusatory system justice demands seeking punish individual produce independent labors, rather than cruel, simple expedient compelling mouth.' necessarily involves puncturing skin extraction, blood, established analysis, guilt. Compelled submission fails 'inviolability personality.' Moreover, enables rely forced accused, violates least meaning requirement procure 'by labors.' 8 As passage implicitly recognizes, never given full protect suggest. History long line authorities lower courts have consistently limited protection situations seeks submerge those obtaining through 'the mouth. sum, fulfilled when guaranteed will." Ibid. leading Holt United States, 218 245, 31 2, 54 1021. There qustion admissible prior trial protest, put blouse fitted him. demand model Holmes, speaking Court, 'based upon extravagant extension 5th Amendment,' went say: '(T)he prohibition man court himself physical moral extort communications him, exclusion may material. principle would forbid jury look prisoner compare features photograph proof.' 252—253, S.Ct., 6.7 9 clear reaches accused's communications, whatever form they take, responses are example, compliance subpoena one's papers. Boyd 116 616, 524, 746. On other hand, both usually offers fingerprinting, photographing, measurements, write identification, appear court, stand, assume stance, walk, make particular gesture.8 distinction emerged, often expressed different ways, bar 'communications' 'testimony,' but makes suspect source 'real evidence' does violate it. 10 Although agree helpful framework understood past applications all instances. will many cases readily drawn. Some tests seemingly obtain 'physical evidence,' lie detector measuring changes function during interrogation, actually eliciting essentially testimonial. compel testing effort determine guilt innocence basis physiological responses, willed not, evoke spirit history Such call mind 'is broad mischief guard.' Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 562, 195, 198. 11 present problem application presented. Not even shadow enforced communication either analysis. Petitioner's capacities were way implicated; indeed, participation, except donor, irrelevant results test, depend alone.9 Since although incriminating product compulsion, neither testimony nor relating some act writing petitioner, inadmissible grounds. III. RIGHT TO COUNSEL 13 This answers claim that, face fact assistance counsel. entitled assert greater because erroneously advised His strictly failure wish, reinforced counsel's advice, left inviolate. No issue ability assist rights possess rejected. IV. 14 SEARCH AND SEIZURE Breithaupt, excluded unlawful search seizure Amendments. unlawful, Wolf People Colorado, 338 69 1359, 93 1782. That Constitution require, prosecutions crimes, obtained Amendment's provisions. overruled respect, 1081, exclusionary rule adopted Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 58 652, applied courts. squarely presented therefore, introduced unconstitutional seizure. personal privacy unwarranted intrusion State. recognized security arbitrary police' 'at core Amendment' 'basic free society.' 27, 1361. reaffirmed purpose applying Mapp. 17 substantially overlap protect. precedent required today reject Self-Incrimination Clause inviolate expeditions crime. if compulsory administration implicate plainly broadly conceived reach expressly provides people secure their persons, houses, papers, effects, seizures, shall *.' (Emphasis added.) reasonably argued, indeed respondent argue, constraints procedures constitute 'persons,' antecedently within 18 Because dealing intrusions into interferences property relationships private papers—'houses, effects'—we clean slate. Limitations kinds seized warrant,10 distinct permissible search,11 instructive context. begin assumption once found analyzed contest, proper constrain, such, justified circumstances, improper manner. words, questions means employed taking respected relevant standards reasonableness. 19 true charges pressed, arise context arrest without warrant. Here, probable cause charge liquor.12 who arrived scene shortly smelled liquor breath, testified eyes 'bloodshot, watery, sort glassy appearance.' saw again hospital, two hours accident. noticed similar symptoms drunkenness. thereupon informed services attorney, silent, anything told me evidence.' 20 While early suggest unrestricted 'right part always English American law, legally arrested, seize fruits evidences crime,' 392, 344, 652; Chiagles, 237 N.Y. o, N.E. 583 (1923) (Cardozo, J.), mere lawful end inquiry. suggestion rests factors—first, more immediate danger concealed weapons destruction direct control Rabinowitz, 339 56, 72—73, 70 430, 437, 438, 94 653 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting); second, permitted, impractical unnecessary enforcement confine objects alone. N.Y., 197—198, N.E., 584. Whatever validity considerations general, little applicability beyond body's surface. chance desired obtained. absence indication found, fundamental risk disappear search. 21 facts suggested relevance likely success alcohol, remains arresting permitted draw inferences instead warrant before proceeding Search warrants ordinarily dwellings, absent emergency, less where concerned. support drawn neutral detached magistrate judged engaged competitive enterprise ferreting out crime.' Johnson 333 10, 13—14, 68 367, 369, 92 436; see Aguilar Texas, 108, 110—111, 1509, 1511, 1512, 723. importance informed, deliberate determinations invade another's indisputable great. 22 believed confronted delay necessary warrant, threatened Preston 376 364, 881, 883, 777. percentage begins diminish drinking stops, functions eliminate system. Particularly this, taken bring investigate seek Given special facts, blood-alcohol content appropriate incident arrest. 23 Similarly, satisfied chosen measure level reasonable one. Extraction samples highly effective determining degree See n. 3, 410, 448. commonplace days periodic examination13 experience them teaches quantity extracted minimal, most procedure virtually risk, trauma, pain. few grounds fear, concern health, religious scruple prefer testing, 'Breathalyzer' refused, 9, supra. need wishes respected.14 24 Finally, record shows performed environment according accepted medical practices. serious technique, rudimentary sort, personnel environment—for administered stationhouse. tolerate conditions invite unjustified element infection 25 Amendments seizures. bears repeating, judgment record. individual's cherished value society. minor stringently indicates permits substantial intrusions, conditions. 26 Affirmed. 27 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, concurring. 28 joining Court's I desire add following comment. agreeing go further apart consideration implicates Cf. my dissenting White 504, 526, 1643, 1655, 740, 753. Chief WARREN, dissenting. 30 important believe sufficient reiterate 440, 412, reverse conviction. BLACK DOUGLAS 32 applicable provision 'No disagree allow doctor puncture vessels order extract analyze alcoholic content, convict 33 admits (petitioner) (in blood) (and was) offense.' give help equivalent strikes quite extraordinary feat. overcomes what seemed insuperable obstacle '* nature, ends.' (Footnote omitted.) 35 cannot reasoning justify denying Rights' guarantee himself. 36 first place seems so 'testimonial' 'communicative nature.' sole project proved successful 'testimony' prove arrested. And certainly 'communicative' supply information enable communicate drunk. 37 think unfortunate heavily very restrictive reading words 'communicative.' These models clarity precision labored explication shows. Nor can far know, find former opinions using limit protection. scholarly precedent, late Professor Wigmore's learned treatise evidence. which, latest edition revised McNaughton, (8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2263 (McNaughton rev. 1961), p. 378), key word vigorous extensive campaign designed keep 'within limits strictest possible.' 2251 (3d ed. 1940), 318. Though admiration scholarship great, regret narrow play major opinions. 38 am happy itself refuses follow implication goes self-incriminating statements coming 'person's lips.' concedes, 746, stands, bars papers tend incriminate strange hierarchy allows being's crime blood's proscribes production lifeless Certainly drunken situation course, oral 'communicate' 39 itself, page 764, expresses doubts, fears, shadowy between like holds amount self-incrimination, 'eliciting testimonial.' explanation fears warn 40 'To (by detectors example) 198 (35 1110).' 41 A basic error liberal construction declared ought have. 42 supra, Wigmore criticized severely, Evidence, 2264 pp. 366—373, among greatest 634—635, 534, members decided civil suits penalties forfeitures incurred commission offenses 43 reason proceedings portion fifth amendment declares himself; constitution *.'* 44 Obviously interpretation completely supported literal language Recognizing announced generally followed ever since, particularly judicial guarantees: 45 'A close (of provisions persons property) deprives half efficacy, leads gradual depreciation right, consisted sound substance. duty watchful citizen, stealthy encroachments thereon.' 635, 535. 46 say, 637, 536, 'an owner books breach laws, establish forfeiture property, surely furnish himself.' departs teachings Boyd. Schmerber undoubtedly yet forbidden With deference say here gives safeguard too technical ordinary commercial contract. 47 apparently, understand, finds comfort decision 694. majority directly indirectly supports case. interpretive philosophy Miranda, unlike wholesome admonitions closing sentence section enough think, expose unsoundness holds. reads: 48 'Since grounds.' How doubted respects actual result offered testimony, jury's verdict testimony? refined, subtle balancing handy instrument narrowing protection, others, future. Believing Framers safeguards construed tribunals best hope keeping governmental oppression, deeply holding. For foregoing reasons set concurring Black Douglas, JJ., 174, 177, 210, 212, 183, 661, 1694, 442, 413, 448, dissent 49 DOUGLAS, 50 adhere views stated (id., 413) word. 51 penumbra Rights. Griswold Connecticut, 381 479, 85 1678, 510. Thus, marks 'a zone privacy' Government force surrender. Id., 484, 1681. Likewise recognizes 'in persons.' clearer imagined forcible bloodletting kind here. 52 FORTAS, reverse. view, applies. Due Process Clause, State, role prosecutor, anyone else, protest. commit violence person, utilize tort, violence. Warren's Vehicle Code 23102(a) provides, pertinent part, 'It drive vehicle highway. *' misdemeanor. companion tavern bowling alley. showing alley about midnight November 12, 1964, car skidded, crossed road struck tree. Both injured treatment. highest certification District Appeal denied. Edwards 314 160, 62 164, 119. 'cannot difference states unequivocally resorts protest condition unable protest.' 441, 413. (WARREN, C.J., dissenting). initiated violence, refused request undergo responded resistance inappropriate force. Compare discussion Part IV, infra. suggests 'communicative,' communicating condition. Of received used. relates acts applies, subject limitations. nod headshake much sense spoken words. terms apply noncommunicative nature asserting though, others. Many constitutions, including original Colonies, phrase 'evidence' turn 'witness.' '(A)s manifest provisions, prohibit party witness, placed seem guaranties, however differently worded, possible 584—585, 206, 1110. 2252 1961). disclosures. employment legal person's lips guilt, take formulation Trujillo, Cal.2d 105, 194 P.2d 681 (1948); regard tests, Haeussler, 252, 260 (1953); Duroncelay, 766, 312 690 (1957). Our today, adopting formulation. collected 2265 Chibbaro, 361 F.2d 365 (C.A.3d Cir. 1966); Graves, 64 208, Cal.Rptr. 386, 388, 411 114, (1966); Weintraub, Voice Identification, Writing Exemplars Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, Vand.L.Rev. 485 govern tried show incriminated tested. unavoidable by-product especially opposes attempts forgo advantage products administering test—products fall Indeed, pain, danger, severity operation almost inevitably confession undergoing 'search,' establishing permissibility text raised connection 'breathalyzer' air expelled lungs content. request, refusal objection. argues introduction comment prosecutor reversal Griffin 380 609, 1229, 106. general principles, Griffin, 468, 37, 1624. conducted making principles contention foreclosed prosecutor's statements. See, e.g., Gouled 255 298, 261, 65 647; 746; contra, Thayer, 63 780, 408 108 (1965); Bisaccia, N.J. 213 A.2d 185 Note, Evidentiary Searches: Rule Reason, Geo.L.J. 593 (1966). e.g. Silverman 505, 679, 734; Abel 362 217, 235, 80 68o, 695, 668; authorizes peace 'without (w)henever committed felony, felony committed.' Cal. Penal 836.3. ultimately prosecuted misdemeanor prosecution traffic violations. Cal.Vehicle 23101. California's follows standard. Cockrell, 659, 788, (1965). 'The become routine everyday life. ritual going military service marriage licenses. colleges permitting entrance literally millions voluntarily gone same, though longer, becoming donors.' Karst, Legislative Facts Constitutional Litigation, 1960 Sup.Ct.Rev. 75, 82—83. Miller, concurred Waite.

Category: 0