Contumacious
Radical Freedom
Bullshit
SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 06/20/1966)
Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles Municipal Court of the criminal offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.*fn1 He had been arrested at a hospital while receiving treatment for injuries suffered in an accident involving the automobile that he had apparently been driving.*fn2 At the direction of a police officer, a blood sample was then withdrawn from petitioner's body by a physician at the hospital.
[ 384 U.S. Page 759]
The chemical analysis of this sample revealed a percent by weight of alcohol in his blood at the time of the offense which indicated intoxication, and the report of this analysis was admitted in evidence at the trial. Petitioner objected to receipt of this evidence of the analysis on the ground that the blood had been withdrawn despite his refusal, on the advice of his counsel, to consent to the test. He contended that in that circumstance the withdrawal of the blood and the admission of the analysis in evidence denied him due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights secured against the States by that Amendment: his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment; his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment; and his right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Appellate Department of the California Superior Court rejected these contentions and affirmed the conviction.*fn3 In view of constitutional decisions since we last considered these issues in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 -- see Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478; Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 -- we granted certiorari. 382 U.S. 971. We affirm.
.
