South Dakota v. Neville

Last updated
South Dakota v. Neville
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 8, 1982
Decided February 22, 1983
Full case name South Dakota, Petitioner v. Mason Henry Neville
Citations459 U.S. 553 ( more )
103 S. Ct. 916; 74 L. Ed. 2d 748; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 129
Case history
PriorState v. Neville, 312 N.W.2d 723 (S.D. 1981)
Holding
A suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test may be admitted as evidence of guilt at trial.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
DissentStevens, joined by Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV

South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prosecutors may use a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test as evidence of guilt and that the introduction of such evidence at trial does not violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. [1]

Contents

Background

In Schmerber v. California (1966), the Supreme Court held that the extraction and analysis of blood samples does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. [2] However, in the years following Schmerber, a split of authority emerged in state courts with regard to whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self incrimination prohibited the use of a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood test as evidence of guilt. [3] South Dakota, for example, passed a statute that stated a person's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test “may be admissible into evidence at the trial.” [4]

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

South Dakota U.S. state in the United States

South Dakota is a U.S. state in the Midwestern region of the United States. It is named after the Lakota and Dakota Sioux Native American tribes, who compose a large portion of the population and historically dominated the territory. South Dakota is the seventeenth largest by area, but the fifth smallest by population and the 5th least densely populated of the 50 United States. As the southern part of the former Dakota Territory, South Dakota became a state on November 2, 1889, simultaneously with North Dakota. Pierre is the state capital and Sioux Falls, with a population of about 187,200, is South Dakota's largest city.

Arrest of Mason Henry Neville

On the evening of July 19, 1980, Mason Henry Neville was stopped by two Madison, South Dakota police officers after they observed Neville's car drive past a stop sign without stopping. [5] When officers asked Neville to step out of his car, he "staggered and fell against the car to support himself." [6] After failing several field sobriety tests, officers placed Neville under arrest. [7] Officers asked Neville if he would submit to a blood-alcohol test, but he refused, stating “I'm too drunk, I won't pass the test.” [7]

Madison, South Dakota City in South Dakota, United States

Madison is a city in Lake County, South Dakota, United States. The population was 6,474 at the 2010 census. It is the county seat of Lake County and is home to Dakota State University.

Stop sign Traffic signal alerting drivers to stop

A stop sign is a traffic sign designed to notify drivers that they must come to a complete stop and make sure no other vehicles are coming and no pedestrians are crossing before proceeding.

At trial, Neville filed a motion to suppress all evidence associated with his refusal to take a blood alcohol test on the grounds that it violated his privilege against self incrimination. [8] The Supreme Court of South Dakota agreed that admitting evidence of Neville's refusal to take the test violated his privilege against self incrimination, [9] and state prosecutors appealed to the United States Supreme Court. [10]

Opinion of the Court

In a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors could use a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood test as evidence of guilt, and the introduction of this evidence at trial does not violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. [1] Writing for the Court's majority, Justice O'Connor concluded that "the state did not directly compel respondent to refuse the test." [11] Additionally, Justice O'Connor wrote that a "simple blood-alcohol test is so safe, painless, and commonplace" that a suspect would not feel coerced to refuse the test. [11]

Sandra Day OConnor Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Sandra Day O'Connor is a retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, who served from her 1981 appointment by President Ronald Reagan until her retirement in 2006. She was the first woman to serve on the Court.

Justice O'Connor also ruled that suspects who refuse to submit to a blood test are not entitled to Miranda warnings about the consequences of refusing the test because officers made it clear that a refusal to submit to a test may lead to "adverse consequences." [12] Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which they argued that the Court in Schmerber intended to adopt a broad and liberal interpretation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. [13]

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 5–4 majority, the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

John Paul Stevens American Supreme Court judge

John Paul Stevens was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1975 until his voluntary retirement in 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the second-oldest-serving justice in the history of the court and the third-longest-serving justice. The oldest-serving justice was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who was 90 years and 309 days at the time of his retirement in 1932. His long tenure saw him write for the court on most issues of American law, including civil liberties, death penalty, government action and intellectual property. In cases involving presidents of the United States, he wrote for the court that they were to be held accountable under American law. A registered Republican when appointed who throughout his life identified as a conservative, Stevens was considered to have been on the liberal side of the court at the time of his retirement. Stevens is the longest-lived Supreme Court justice in United States history.

Thurgood Marshall American judge

Thurgood Marshall was an American lawyer who served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from October 1967 until October 1991. Marshall was the Court's 96th justice and its first African-American justice. Prior to his judicial service, he successfully argued several cases before the Supreme Court, including Brown v. Board of Education.

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Miranda</i> warning notification given by American police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their rights

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Mirandarights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.

Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement, "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another [person] in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof". Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.

Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908), was an case of the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, the Court established the Incorporation Doctrine by concluding that while certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination is not incorporated.

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Amendment guaranteeing rights related to trials and due process

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, as well as any corporation, private enterprise, group, or individual, or any foreign government in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States deemed defendants' Fifth Amendment privilege not to be compelled to be witnesses against themselves was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts, overruling the decision in Twining v. New Jersey (1908). The majority decision holds that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the federal government to enforce the first eight amendments on state governments.

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984), was a 1983 case before the US Supreme Court determining whether a warrantless arrest violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.

California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that providing personal information at the scene of an accident does not infringe on one's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation. The term is most commonly encountered in the context of United States drunk driving laws. There are no U.S. states that allow implied consent as an excuse for rape in a court of law.

Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that a compelled surgical intrusion into an individual's body for evidence implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion would be "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, even if likely to produce evidence of a crime.

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6-2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands their right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware that they have the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the right.

Mere evidence rule

In the law of the United States, the mere evidence rule was a historical doctrine that defined the scope of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.

Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that involuntary blood samples, taken by a skilled technician to determine intoxication, do not violate substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This case was only the second time the Court considered whether police could forcibly enter inside a suspect's body to extract evidence. Writing for a 6–3 majority, Justice Tom C. Clark argued that blood tests were necessary as a matter of public policy to ensure traffic safety on roads and highways, and that "modern community living requires modern scientific methods of crime detection." Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas both wrote dissenting opinions in which they argued that the involuntary blood sample taken in this case was "repulsive" and violated substantive due process.

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the search incident to arrest doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct warrantless breath tests but not blood tests on suspected drunk drivers.

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), was a major United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established the power of a federal grand jury engaged in an investigation into corporate malfeasance to require the corporation in question to surrender its records.

References

  1. 1 2 South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 561-62 (1983).
  2. ↑ Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966).
  3. ↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 558 ("we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict").
  4. ↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 556 (citing S.D.Comp.Laws Ann. § 32–23–10.1).
  5. ↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 554; see also Brief for Petitioner, South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983).
  6. ↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 554.
  7. 1 2 Neville, 459 U.S. at 555.
  8. ↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 556.
  9. ↑ State v. Neville, 312 N.W.2d 723 (S.D. 1981).
  10. ↑ South Dakota v. Neville, 456 U.S. 971 (1982) (granting certiorari).
  11. 1 2 Neville, 459 U.S. at 562-63.
  12. ↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 566.
  13. ↑ Neville, 459 U.S. at 570 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.