Birchfield v. North Dakota

Supreme Court of the United States · 2016 · Criminal Procedure

579 U.S. 438 (2016)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentSearch incident to arrestImplied consentDrunk drivingunreasonable searchesbreath testblood test

Facts

Birchfield was arrested in North Dakota for driving while impaired after failing field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath screening, and he refused a blood draw after being told refusal was a crime; he was convicted under the refusal statute. Bernard was arrested in Minnesota for driving while impaired, refused a breath test after being told refusal was a crime, and was prosecuted for test refusal. Beylund was arrested in North Dakota for driving while impaired, consented to a blood draw after being told refusal was a crime, and his license was suspended administratively based on the result. The cases concerned state laws that criminalized refusal to submit to BAC testing after lawful drunk-driving arrests.

Issue

Does the Fourth Amendment permit States to criminalize a motorist's refusal to submit to warrantless BAC testing after a lawful drunk-driving arrest? More specifically, are warrantless breath tests and warrantless blood tests permissible as searches incident to arrest, and can implied-consent laws justify criminal penalties for refusing such tests?

Rule

Under the Fourth Amendment, warrantless breath tests are permissible as searches incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving because their privacy intrusion is slight and the State's need for BAC testing is great. Warrantless blood tests are not justified under the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine because they are significantly more intrusive and breath tests generally serve law enforcement interests. Motorists may not be deemed to have consented, by driving on public roads, to submit to a blood test on pain of committing a criminal offense.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Late one night in Tulsa, Officer Dana Morrow lawfully arrested Eli Navarro for drunk driving after observing erratic driving, smelling alcohol, and watching Eli fail field sobriety tests. At the station, without seeking a warrant, the officer directed Eli to provide an evidentiary breath sample and warned him that state law made refusal a separate crime; Eli refused and was charged with refusal.

If Eli moves to dismiss the refusal charge on Fourth Amendment grounds, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held categorically that a warrantless breath test is a permissible search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving. Because that search is valid without a warrant, the State may criminalize refusal to submit to it. The rule does not depend on case-specific proof that this particular arrestee might destroy evidence or that exigency existed.