Document: 459 U.S. 553 103 S.Ct. 916 74 L.Ed.2d 748 SOUTH DAKOTA, Petitionerv.Mason Henry NEVILLE No. 81-1453. Argued Dec. 8, 1982. Decided Feb. 22, 1983. Syllabus A South Dakota statute permits a person suspected of driving while intoxicated to refuse submit blood-alcohol test, but authorizes revocation the driver's license so refusing test and such refusal be used against him at trial. When respondent was arrested by police officers in for intoxicated, asked warned that he could lose his if refused did not warn Respondent take test. The trial court granted respondent's motion suppress all evidence Supreme Court affirmed on ground allowing introduction violated privilege self-incrimination. Held: 1. admission into defendant's does offend Fifth Amendment right after officer has lawfully requested it, is an act coerced officer, thus protected offer taking clearly legitimate becomes no less when State offers second option with attendant penalties making choice. Pp. 558-564. 2. It would fundamentally unfair violation due process use as guilt, even though failed Doyle v. Ohio, 426 610, 96 2240, 49 91, distinguished. Such failure sort implicit promise forego unfairly "trick" were later offered 564-566. 312 N.W.2d 723 (S.D.1981) reversed remanded. Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., petitioner. David R. Gienapp, Madison, S.D., respondent. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion Court. 1 Schmerber California, 384 757, 86 1826, 16 908 (1966), held force defendant without violating We now address question left open Schmerber, id., 765, n. 9, S.Ct., 1833, hold likewise 2 * Two stopped car they saw fail stop sign. get out car. As car, staggered fell support himself. smelled alcohol breath. have license, informed it revoked previous driving-while-intoxicated conviction. touch finger nose walk straight line. these field sobriety tests, placed under arrest read Miranda rights.1 acknowledged understood rights agreed talk lawyer present. App. 11. Reading from printed card, then refused.2 stating "I'm too drunk, I won't pass test." again request took station, where third time. continued saying drunk it.3 3 law specifically declares "may admissible trial." S.D.Comp.Laws Ann. § 32-23-10.1.4 Nevertheless, sought circuit suppression three reasons: federal constitutional rights; advise trial; irrelevant issues before court. appealed entire order. Court, grounds 32-23-10.1, which allows this evidence, state self-incrimination.5 reasoned communicative involving testimonial capacities compelled communication forcing " 'to choose between submitting perhaps unpleasant examination producing himself,' N.W.2d, 726 (quoting Andrews, 297 Minn. 260, 262, 212 863, 864 (1973), cert. denied, 419 881, 95 146, 42 121 (1974)).6 4 Since other jurisdictions found tests,7 we certiorari resolve conflict. 456 971, 102 2232, 72 844 (1982). II 5 situation underlying case—that driver occurs tragic frequency our Nation's highways. carnage caused drivers well documented needs detailed recitation here. This although having daily contact problem courts have, repeatedly lamented tragedy. See Breithaupt Abram, 352 432, 439, 77 408, 412, L.Ed. 2d 448 (1957) ("The increasing slaughter highways, most should avoidable, reaches astounding figures only heard battlefield"); Tate Short, 401 395, 401, 91 668, 672, 28 130 (1971) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring) (deploring "traffic irresponsibility frightful spews upon highways"); Perez Campbell, 402 637, 657 1704, 1715 1722, 29 233 highways Nation exceeds death toll wars"); Mackey Montrym, 443 1, 17-18, 99 2612, 2620-2621, 61 321 (1979) (recognizing "compelling interest highway safety"). 6 part its program deter drinkers driving, enacted "implied consent" law. 32-23-10. any operating vehicle deemed consented chemical alcoholic content blood intoxicated. In upheld state-compelled claim infringed self-incrimination, made applicable States through Fourteenth Amendment.8 recognized some degree "inviolability human personality" "requirement procure accused 'by own independent labors,' noted never been given full scope suggested values helps protect. therefore bars compelling "communications" or "testimony." "physical real" rather than unprotected privilege. 7 then, test.9 Dakota, however, declined authorize administer suspect's will. Rather, avoid violent confrontations, suspect indeed requires inform refuse. permission price, however. department public safety, providing who opportunity hearing, revoke one year both person's drive nonresident privileges may possess. 32-23-11. penalty unquestionably legitimate, assuming appropriate procedural protections. (1979). 8 further discourages choice §§ 32-23-10.1 19-13-28.1. expressly reserved whether U.S., 9. indicate general principles, particular holding Griffin 380 609, 85 1229, 14 106 (1965), control inquiry. Ibid.10 9 Most applying principles Many courts, following lead Traynor's California People Sudduth, 65 Cal.2d 543, 55 Cal.Rptr. 393, 421 P.2d 389 850, 88 43, 19 119 (1967), physical reason privilege.11 Traynor explained more fully companion case Ellis, 529, 385, 393 (1966) (refusal display voice testimonial), potentially incriminating similar circumstantial consciousness escape custody evidence. below, relying Dudley State, 548 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), 863 (1974), rejected view. minority view emphasizes "a tacit overt expression thoughts," Neville, 726, Constitution "simply forbids compulsory revealing thoughts mental processes, acts, act, words spoken speak." Dudley, S.W.2d, 708. 10 While find considerable analogies flight Traynor, decline rest decision ground. distinction real hand, communications testimony, other, readily drawn many cases. 764, 1832.12 situations arising present difficult gradation indicates complete inaction, nods head negatively, states "I test," here, stated impermissible coercion involved refuses regardless form refusal, prefer ground, draw possible distinctions necessary circumstances.13 11 Fisher United States, 425 391, 397, 1569, 1574, 48 39 (1976), "[T]he limited prohibiting 'physical moral compulsion' exerted asserting privilege." requirement comes directly language directing "shall criminal witness himself." Const., Amdt. (emphasis added). And Professor Levy concluded history privilege, "[t]he element compulsion involuntariness always ingredient and, existed, protests interrogatories." W. Levy, Origins 328 (1968). 12 Here, compel gave refusing. Of course, fact government gives "choice" classic violation—telling testify—does not, extreme view, incriminate He self accusation, testify falsely (risking perjury) contempt). But long prevents "cruel trilemma" defendant. Murphy Waterfront Commission, 378 52, 55, 84 1594, 1596, 678 (1964). also New Jersey Portash, 440 450, 459, 1292, 1297, 59 501 (telling grant legislative immunity face contempt sanctions "the essence testimony.") Similarly, cautioned bar testimony obtained proffered alternative painful, dangerous, severe, violative religious beliefs, almost inevitably "confession." 9.14 Cf. Arizona, 436, 458, 1602, 1619, 694 (unless inherent custodial surroundings dispelled, statement truly product free choice). 13 contrast prohibited choices, behind are hindered him. simple safe, painless, commonplace, see 771, 1836, concedes, must, legitimately suspect, will, accede Given, action Nor subtly choosing had compel, offering true To contrary, wants inference intoxication positive far stronger recognize, will easy pleasant make. often suspects defendants make choices. See, e.g., Crampton decided McGautha 183, 213-217, 1454, 1470-1472, 711 (1971). hold, therefore, self-incrimination.15 III 15 Relying suggests violates Due Process Clause because consequences refusal. prosecutor using silence warnings impeach Just Term before, Hale, 422 171, 2133, 45 (1975), determined supervisory power impeachment dubious probative value. Although mentioned rationale rule states, 617, 2244, relied fundamental unfairness implicitly assuring explanation subsequently Id., 618, 2245. Unlike Doyle, do think First, dimension, cannot unduly burdened. Miranda, 468, 37, 1624, 37. Fletcher Weir, 455 603, 1309, 71 490 (1982) (post-arrest testimony). Respondent's contrast, simply matter grace bestowed legislature. 17 Moreover, emphasize dangers speak ("whatever you say can court"), give warning adverse remain silent. imbalance delivery warnings, assures challenged contained misleading assurances relative that, chose know results additional chosen trial.16 Explaining option, loss year. consequence court,17 unrealistic here assure those occur. Importantly, clear "safe harbor," consequences. 18 actually him, conclude comported fairness required Process. IV judgment reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 20 ordered. 21 STEVENS, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 22 understandably anxious curtailing "carnage drivers." Ante, 558. sympathize concern, justify rendition advisory issue. case, reverse rests adequate join Court's 23 framed appeal "whether SDCL Neville's Const. Amend. V; S.D. art. VI, 9." 723, 725 (S.D.1981). After analyzing cases, concluded: 24 "We accused's self-incrimination unconstitutional." 726. 25 Thus, unambiguously Constitution. That certainly beyond review. 26 Given existence established dispute jurisdiction independent.1 lack indicated, explicitly implicitly, construction Article contingent agreement interpretation Constitution.2 There presumption law, specific below suggest harbored 27 Unless explicit notice provision intended mere shadow comparable Federal Constitution, presumptuous—if paternalistic—for assumption own. No how eloquent persuasive analysis be, presume highest sovereign modify whenever interpret differently. Even tribunal misconceives vacate merely unsolicited re-analyze law.3 If premised must presumed unless otherwise.4 Nothing establishes adds protections residents already provided Indeed, contrary presumption: "This final authority enforcement assumed nature constitution similarity document constitution." Opperman, 247 673, 674 (S.D.1976).5 30 establish independent. reinforced case. For "more liberal" language. *.6 willing grounds, 761-762 6, 1830-1831 construed broadly liberal Ibid. "broad enough" exclude "no need time" Those plainly understand "dependent" law.7 31 Because there exists dismiss writ certiorari.8 card. read: "You You don't me want so. whatever confer lawyer, you're being questioned. unable pay one, appointed represent cost you. Knowing rights, present? talking demand time." 8. 467-473, 1624-1627, (1966). card actual influence drugs, S.D.C.L. 32-23-1. your determine concentration. given. expense addition requested. requested, non-residence appear hearing shall revoked. Circuit Do what told you? wish requested?" 8-9. Responding questions, drinking "close case" himself home, last drink "about ten minutes ago." Tr. Preliminary Hearing 19-13-28.1 notwithstanding proper subject comment judge counsel, blood, urine, breath bodily substance, "is evidence" alcohol. regard analysis." STEVENS emphasizes, post, constitution. decision, resting well. reaching holding, first analyzed decisions described issue review "[t]o applies evidence," added), purposes standard," cases analyze remarkably reviewed Delaware Prouse, 648, 651-653, 1391, 1394-1395, 660 various interpreting Fourth procedure there, summarily infringed. characterized their analysis, every practice violate would, situation, concluded, below. expressing dissatisfaction attempts distinguish noting said constitutions "substantially similar" latter necessarily former." Post, 571, 7. virtually identical statements. footnote, textual difference interpreted prohibition "in light definition 'evidence' *. Therefore, "[s]ince broad enough time Art. Constitution." violated, precisely reasoning sufficient Prouse us hear decide determination voluntary waiver yet, nevertheless U.S.C. 1257(3) finally determined, ultimately prevails trial, mooted; loses governing S.D.Laws 23A-32-4 23A-32-5, presenting Stewart, 498, 71, 1640, (decided Arizona ); Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469, 481, 1029, 1039, 43 (1975). cited notes 12, infra. arguments process, unreasonable searches seizures. caution concerns initiated violence administering respect reasonable undergo different testing, responded resistance inappropriate force. 760, 4, 1830, 4. prosecutor's court's comments stand impermissibly burdened Griffin, inapplicable. Newhouse Misterly, 415 F.2d 514 (CA9 1969); Hill 366 So.2d 318, 324-325 (Ala.1979); Campbell Superior Ct, Ariz. 542, 479 685 (1971); Haze, 218 Kan. 60, 542 720 (1975) handwriting exemplar); City Westerville Cunningham, Ohio St.2d 121, 239 N.E.2d 40 pointed lie detector example characterize real. seek obtain testing evoke spirit Amendment." 1832. Cal.2d, 537, Cal.Rptr., 389, P.2d, (analyzing tests within privilege). seemingly invokes protection presented Estelle Smith, 451 454, 101 1866, 68 359 (1981). There, disclosures during court-ordered psychiatric examination. psychiatrist observing patient's infer facts mind, examine truth coercion, analytically related state, submission qualify Welch District 594 903 (CA2 1979); Meints, 189 Neb. 264, 202 (1972); Gardner, 52 Or.App. 663, 629 412 (1981); Brean, 136 Vt. 147, 385 A.2d 1085 (1978). record sustain context inquiry interrogation meaning Miranda. Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 301, 100 1682, 1689, 64 (1980), actions "normally custody" constitute interrogation. highly regulated same suspects. fingerprinting photography. enjoys prophylactic outside basic protection. generally Arenella, Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Reappraisal, Am.Crim.L.Rev. 31, 56-58 court, seriously contend inadmissible, Schneckloth Bustamonte, 218, 93 2041, 36 854 (1972) (knowledge essential proving effective consent search). them Oral Arg. 16. "[W]e until appears record." Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 128, 464, 89 789 (1945). Accord, Jankovich Indiana Toll Road Comm'n, 379 487, 493, 439 (1963); Honeyman Hanan, 300 14, 18-19, 57 350, 351-352, 81 476 (1937); Fox Film Muller, 296 207, 56 80 158 (1935); Lynch York, 293 16, 79 191 (1934); McCoy Shaw, 277 302, 519, 891 (1928); Petrie Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, 248 154, 157, 25, 26, 63 178 (1918); Enterprise Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 163-166, 37 320-321, 644 (1917); Eustis Bolles, 150 361, 131, 1111 (1893). Murdock Memphis, 87 (20 Wall.) 590, 429 (1875). Harlan wrote Mental Hygiene Dept. Kirchner, 194, 198, 871, 874, 753 (1965): sole basis original) (footnote omitted). "[O]ur correct wrong judgments, revise opinions. permitted render opinion, rendered corrected views laws, amount nothing opinion." supra, 126, 463. Minnick Corrections, 452 105, 120-123, 2211, 2219-2220, Rescue Army Municipal 331 549, 568-569, 67 1409, 1419, 1666 (1947); Hastings, 188, 193, 220, 148 (1935). policy avoiding opinions consistent theme throughout jurisprudence. Paschall Christie-Stewart, 414 100, 94 313, 38 298 (1973) (per curiam ) especially instructive. turned up supporting Oklahoma's Observing argument proved solid, "any jurisdiction," claim. 102, 315. alert opportunities means disposition. E.g., Mills Rogers, --- ----, 2442, 2451, 73 (1982); Mesquite Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 283, 294-295, 1070, 1077, 152 Siler Louisville & Nashville 213 175, 451, 53 (1909). Hagans Lavine, 528, 546-547 nn. 12-13, 1372, 1383-1384 577 (1974). burden petitioner appellant jurisdiction. regularly dismissed might rested Durley Mayo, 351 277, 285, 76 806, 811, 1178 (1956); Stembridge Georgia, 343 541, 547, 834, 837, 1130 (1952); Johnson Risk, 137 300, 111, 34 683 (1890). speaking remand previously certain conduct unconstitutional, solely 228 reversed. 428 364, 3092, 1000 (1976). passage text excerpted reaffirmation prior conclusion, relevant Amendment," 674, unmoved observation argued different, 675. quoting footnote 761-762, 1830-1831, stated: 660, confess misgivings about conclusion clarification, note infra, indication correctness understanding began stops "violate guarantees," 382 1359, 1361 (Del.1978), went former," 1362. drew close statement, random motorist [absent suspicion] constitutionally Amendments 1364. apparent arguably independent, occasionally vacated clarification decision. Air Pollution Variance Board Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 861, 866, 2114, 2116, 607 (1974); Krivda, 409 33, 32, (1965); Minnesota National Tea 309 551, 60 676, 920 (1940); Tax Comm'n Cott, 306 511, 605, 83 950 (1939). supra (case parties certificate clarifying judgment). should, very least, follow course today. "[I]n answer us, seems Union intended." 127-128, 464. Some overused, "tak[es] appellants normal demonstrating plac[es] [the state]." Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. Jerome, 434 241, 244, 98 546, 548, 54 506 (1978) (Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting). Department Motor Vehicles Rios, 410 425, 427-430, 1019, 1020-1022, 35 398 DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, join,

Category: 0