Getting a warrant takes time: Opposing view
Now police will need a warrant first when criminal penalties are at stake.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote that states should be laboratories of democracy where legislatures “try novel social . . . experiments.”
On Thursday, the Supreme Court preserved flexibility for states to combat drunken driving by ruling that a warrant is not needed to criminalize an arrestee’s refusal to take a breath test. But it eliminated another important tool by ruling that states first need a warrant to obtain a blood test.
States have good reason to experiment with solutions to reduce driving while intoxicated, including making it a crime to refuse to take a breath or blood test. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recommended that all states criminalize refusal and make penalties for it greater than those for driving while intoxicated.
Civil penalties for refusal are low — typically a license is revoked for 30 days to one year for a first refusal. The national average refusal rate is 20%, NHTSA found. Two states reported refusal rates exceeding 80%.
Blood and breath tests provide the best evidence of intoxication. And, according to NHTSA, drivers who refuse these tests “mandated by implied consent laws comprise a high-risk group” of drunken driver offenders. Studies show that they are likely to have especially high blood alcohol content levels and to be recidivist drunken drivers.
Criminal penalties, including jail time, provide added incentive for arrestees to take a blood or breath test. Criminal penalties will help keep some of the most unsafe drivers off the road.
The argument that police officers should “just get a warrant” has some appeal. After all, in this technological age, getting a warrant is quicker and easier than ever. But particularly in rural areas in the middle of the night in states like those sued in this case, Minnesota and North Dakota, getting a warrant takes valuable time. All the while the arrestee’s blood alcohol level is dropping.
In its opinion, the court acknowledged the upsides of blood tests — they detect not just alcohol, but also drugs, and require less driver participation than breath tests. But now police will need a warrant first when criminal penalties are at stake.
It is unfortunate the court has reduced state’s flexibility in using this superior tool.
Lisa Soronen is executive director of the State and Local Legal Center.