Facts of the Case: A suspect caught in driving under the influence of alcohol underwent a blood sample analysis and the result was used against the suspect. Schmerber was found guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The evidence was found on the result of the chemical examination that showed intoxication. Extraction of blood happened at the order of a police authority where the petitioner was taken following the accident. The extraction of blood was taken despite Schmerber’s refusal.
How would you have ruled: According to the Fifth Amendment which contains the person’s right against self-incrimination, a person or accuse is protected from being urged to testify in contradiction to oneself that would otherwise provide evidence of a communicative nature or testimonial type and that extraction of blood and the analysis of blood is not something that involves compulsion.
Hence, no violation was committed on the part of the police officer and that the Supreme Court merely based its judgment based on the result of the finding. While recognizing the fact that the State urged Schmerber to submit to the procedure that might possibly be used to convict him, it does not follow that the petitioner was urged to testify against himself. In addition, the court stated that no violation of compulsion was made when blood was extracted for analysis.
Why you would have ruled that way: The opposition argued that the sample of blood was for the person who examined it to give proof to prosecute him. Hence, according to Schmerber, the sample of blood taken from Schmerber and used by the petitioner had both a communicative nature and testimonial. Because the result of the blood was neither Schmerber’s testimony nor proof relative to some writing or communicative act by the petitioner, it was considered valid on privilege grounds.
Reference
Ingram, J. L. (2009). In J. L. Ingram, Second Edition Criminal Procedure Theory and Practice Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Call.
