Birchfield v. North Dakota
United States Supreme Court
136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016)
![SC](https://quimbee-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/educator/photo/11/Sean_Carroll.webp)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Birchfield, Bernard, and Beylund (defendants) were each arrested for drunk driving. Birchfield refused a warrantless blood-alcohol-concentration (BAC) blood test and was charged with a crime for doing so. Bernard refused a warrantless BAC breath test and was charged with a crime for doing so. Beylund was convicted of drunk driving and had his license suspended after he submitted to a warrantless BAC blood test. Beylund agreed to the test because the administering police officer told him that the law required him to do so. The United States Supreme Court consolidated the cases and granted certiorari to determine the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to these charges.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alito, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Thomas, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.