Schmerber v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1966 · Criminal Procedure

384 U.S. 757 (1966)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentDue ProcessSearch and SeizureSelf-Incriminationblood draw

Facts

After an automobile accident, petitioner was taken to a hospital for treatment of his injuries. A police officer, observing signs of intoxication and having probable cause to arrest him, directed a physician at the hospital to withdraw a blood sample despite petitioner's refusal, which he made on advice of counsel. Chemical analysis of the sample showed a blood-alcohol level indicating intoxication, and that report was introduced at trial. Petitioner argued that the compelled blood draw and admission of the analysis violated due process, the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to counsel, and the Fourth Amendment.

Issue

Whether the State's compelled withdrawal of petitioner's blood at a hospital, over his objection and without a warrant, and the admission of the blood-alcohol analysis violated due process, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, or the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Rule

The Fifth Amendment privilege bars the State from compelling an accused to provide testimonial or communicative evidence, but not from compelling the accused to be the source of real or physical evidence. A blood draw is a search of the person under the Fourth Amendment, and such an intrusion is constitutional only if officers are justified in requiring it under the circumstances and if the means and procedures used are reasonable; where officers have probable cause and reasonably believe delay to obtain a warrant threatens destruction of evidence because blood alcohol naturally dissipates, a warrantless blood draw may be a proper incident of arrest if performed in a medically acceptable manner.

🔒

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.

In Phoenix, Officer Lena Ortiz arrested Devin Cole for suspected drunk driving after observing him weave across lanes and smell strongly of alcohol. At a clinic, a nurse drew Devin's blood over his objection, and the prosecution later introduced the laboratory alcohol analysis at trial.

Devin argues that admitting the blood-test result violated the Fifth Amendment because the State compelled evidence from his own body. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that the Fifth Amendment privilege protects an accused only from being compelled to testify or otherwise provide evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature. A compelled blood draw makes the accused the source of real or physical evidence, and the chemical result depends on analysis rather than the accused's testimonial capacities. Therefore, admitting the blood-test result does not violate the privilege.