Lindsay Waters v. Georgia

A blood draw is an intrusive search. A breath test is less intrusive and an effective alternative in a DUI alcohol case. This Court held in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), and Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2017), that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from compelled warrantless blood draws (even in DUI drug cases). Many States have ignored the holdings of this Court that explained that there are limitations to the “implied consent” of drivers to testing by driving on the roads and that warrantless blood tests cannot be compelled. After McNeely and Birchfield, many states have refused to amend their “implied consent” laws even though the laws were carefully crafted to compel drivers to submit to the designated tests (including warrantless blood tests that were deemed unconstitutional in McNeely and Birchfield ). The Georgia statute, described below, is one illustrative example among many. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS: Whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to coerce submission to a warrantless blood test by telling motorists arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol that any refusal to submit to the blood test will be used against them at trial as proof of guilt, that the law requires the motorists to submit to the blood draw, and that their driving privileges will be suspended for a year for refusing to submit to the blood test?