Articles Posted in DUI

The 4th Amendment has been resuscitated!!  Hopefully you recall back in September of 2010, I wrote about GPS tracking devices and a recent decision from the District of Columbia Circuit (“GPS Tracking Devices – A Warrant or Not A Warrant – That is Now the Question”).  Well, on Monday we got our answer; kind of….

In United States v. Antoine Jones, #10-1259 United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Scalia wrote the decision of the Court, that said the Government’s installation of the GPS tracking device on the suspect’s vehicle to monitor it’s movement was a search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, and thus raised the issue of whether a warrant was required prior to the installation.  I said “kind of….” because whether this search required a warrant was not answered.

The Court rejected the government’s argument that the attachment of a GPS device was not a search, but did not define how long or if you could track the vehicle with or without a warrant and what violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court declined to opine on other details, like whether a warrant requirement applied to tracking cell phones. It appears that Justice Sotomayor was certainly ready to cast a much wider net and restrict government activity.

So what does the Supreme Court’s decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico mean for the country at large? The answer is that no longer can scientific evidence be introduced into a case as if it were non-testimonial evidence. Testing and subsequent analysis of forensic evidence, far from being rote, requires a level of scientific expertise that, on occasion, may come into question. It is therefore imperative that whoever performs testing on any manner of sample must be made available for testimony so that the accuracy and reliability of the conclusions may be fully investigated. Although this doesn’t pose much of a problem for us here in Maine, many larger states may find themselves in a predicament now that highly technical and crucial forensic evidence can not be presented to the court as though it was generated by some nameless pencil-pusher.

The Supreme Court recently ruled in Bullcoming v. New Mexico in favor of the Petitioner. The details of this otherwise mundane DWI/DUI case are as follows: Bullcoming, when initially pulled over on the night of the bad incident, refused to take a breath alcohol test. As a result, a blood alcohol test was ordered, which later was introduced as evidence.

The rub, however, is that the results of the blood alcohol test were presented as a business record, meaning that someone other than the forensic investigator which analyzed the blood sample could testify to its accuracy and veracity. Bullcoming argued that the evidence was instead testimonial, and that the Confrontation Clause would therefore be applicable. Although the New Mexico Supreme Court did indeed agree that the blood analysis was testimonial evidence, it ruled that it was admissible without the testimony of the forensic analyst who tested the sample. This ruling was reversed when brought before the Supreme Court, who voted 5-4 in favor of Bullcoming. Congratulations to my friend and colleague Justin McShane, Esq. (@JustinMcShane) who was one of the amici that filed a brief in support of Bullcoming with NACDL/NCDD.

Next week: What does this mean for us?