U.S. Supreme Court Case Essay 1. The following presentation is intended to help students complete the Supreme Court case essay assignment for Criminal Law. 2. Choose a Supreme Court case that interests you. You may choose any case on a criminal law topic heard by the Supreme Court of the United States to research and write an essay about it. One good case to review is Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ____ (2016). 3. Research the details about the case (answer the 5 research questions: Who, What, When, Where and Why). Take notes about what you discover. Note the sources of your information. You must list your sources at the end of the essay in BlueBook citation format, proper footnotes in Bluebook format throughout the essay, and properly cite the sources of each piece of information in the essay itself. For details on how to do this, please review the Legal Studies Program Writing Guide in the APUS Library. Of course you can also use the Bluebook, and you may ask your professor for assistance as required. 4. After researching a case, organize the information you have collected by making an outline. A basic structure for organizing your information might be as follows. A. Introduction: 1. Identify the name of the case and when it was heard before SCOTUS. 2. Identify the parties involved in the case. 3. Briefly describe the focus of the case. B. Describe the case itself: What was the controversy in the case? C. How did the case move through the courts before reaching SCOTUS? 1. What court had original jurisdiction in the case? 2. How had previous courts ruled in the case? D. What did the Supreme Court rule in the case? 1. What was the argument of the majority opinion? 2. What was the argument of the minority opinion? E. What was the reasoning used by the Supreme Court to reach its decision? How did it reach its decision? E. Conclusion: How does the Court’s ruling in the case affect Americans today? 1. Has the Court’s ruling in the case affected other rulings in other cases? 2. Has the Court’s ruling affected the interpretation and enforcement of any particular laws, and how those laws are enforced? 3. If applicable: Has the Court’s ruling in this case affected you, or someone you know, personally? 10. Write your essay. If you organized your information based on the suggested outline, then all you have to do is write down what you have learned from your research, and put it into a footnoted two to three page essay. Your first paragraph is the introduction (the information under letter A of your outline). The second paragraph is the information under letter B, and so on. 11. Sources: Be sure to cite your sources, using sequentially numbered footnotes. That means any information you learned from another source, such as a website, a magazine article, a videotaped interview etc., must be properly noted in your essay. Make sure you use footnotes in proper BlueBook citation style. Footnotes appear at the bottom of ...

1. U.S. Supreme Court Case Essay
1. The following presentation is intended to help students
complete the Supreme Court case essay assignment for Criminal
Law.
2. Choose a Supreme Court case that interests you. You may
choose any case on a criminal law topic heard by the Supreme
Court of the United States to research and write an essay about
it. One good case to review is Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579
U.S. ____ (2016).
3. Research the details about the case (answer the 5 research
questions: Who, What, When, Where and Why). Take notes
about what you discover. Note the sources of your information.
You must list your sources at the end of the essay in BlueBook
citation format, proper footnotes in Bluebook format throughout
the essay, and properly cite the sources of each piece of
information in the essay itself. For details on how to do this,
please review the Legal Studies Program Writing Guide in the
APUS Library. Of course you can also use the Bluebook, and
you may ask your professor for assistance as required.
4. After researching a case, organize the information you have
collected by making an outline. A basic structure for organizing
your information might be as follows.
A. Introduction:
1. Identify the name of the case and when it was heard
before SCOTUS.
2. Identify the parties involved in the case.
3. Briefly describe the focus of the case.
B. Describe the case itself: What was the controversy in the
case?
C. How did the case move through the courts before reaching
SCOTUS?
1. What court had original jurisdiction in the case?
2. How had previous courts ruled in the case?
D. What did the Supreme Court rule in the case?

2. 1. What was the argument of the majority opinion?
2. What was the argument of the minority opinion?
E. What was the reasoning used by the Supreme Court to reach
its decision? How did it reach its decision?
E. Conclusion: How does the Court’s ruling in the case affect
Americans today?
1. Has the Court’s ruling in the case affected other rulings
in other cases?
2. Has the Court’s ruling affected the interpretation and
enforcement of any particular laws, and how those laws are
enforced?
3. If applicable: Has the Court’s ruling in this case
affected you, or someone you know, personally?
10. Write your essay. If you organized your information based
on the suggested outline, then all you have to do is write down
what you have learned from your research, and put it into a
footnoted two to three page essay. Your first paragraph is the
introduction (the information under letter A of your outline).
The second paragraph is the information under letter B, and so
on.
11. Sources: Be sure to cite your sources, using sequentially
numbered footnotes. That means any information you learned
from another source, such as a website, a magazine article, a
videotaped interview etc., must be properly noted in your essay.
Make sure you use footnotes in proper BlueBook citation style.
Footnotes appear at the bottom of EACH page, not at the end of
the document (those are endnotes). If you have questions about
citations, ask your instructor prior to turning in the assignment.
The case of Birchfield v. North Dakota was heard before the
Supreme Court of the United States on April 20th, 2016. This
case is a consolidation of three cases Birchfield v. North
Dakota, Bernard v. Minnesota, and Beylund v. Levi. The
petitioners are Danny Birchfield, William Robert Bernard, Jr.,

3. and Steve Michael Beylund. The respondent in this case is the
State of North Dakota. The focus of this case is to fight serious
harms inflicted by drunk drivers (Findlaw, n.d.). All states have
laws that prohibit motorists from driving with a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) exceeding a specified level. The penalty of
refusing the test was originally suspension of driver’s license
however, some states toughened their drunk driving laws
making it a crime to refuse to undergo testing (Findlaw, n.d.).
The issue that was presented before the court asks the question,
can a state statute criminalize an individual’s refusal to submit
to a blood alcohol test when a warrant is absent and whether
this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment (Oyez, n.d.)?
In Morton County, North Dakota, Danny Birchfield drove his
vehicle into a ditch. When officers arrived at the scene they
believed he was intoxicated. After failing the field sobriety tests
and breath test, Birchfield refused to consent to a chemical test.
The arresting officer then advised him of his obligation under
North Dakota law to under go a blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) and refusing to submit a blood test could lead to criminal
punishment (Findlaw, n.d.). Due to his refusal Birchfield was
then charged with a misdemeanor for refusing to consent to a
chemical test in violation of state law (Oyez, n.d.). In a similar
case in Minnesota, William Robert Bernard, Jr. admitted to
police he had been drinking but denied driving his truck
although he had the truck keys in his hands. He refused to
perform the field sobriety test and was then arrested on
suspicion of driving while impaired (DWI) (Oyez, n.d). Once
arriving at the police station, he then refused to consent to a
chemical test which was in violation of Minnesota state law. In
a different incident, Steve Beylund, after being informed it was
a criminal offense in North Dakota to refuse a BAC consented
to the test which confirmed he was driving under the influence
and he was then charged with DUI (Oyez, n.d.).

4. These three men challenged the state statutes criminalizing
refusal to submit to a chemical test and argued that it violated
their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures when there was no probable cause that
would support a warrant for the test (Oyez, n.d.). In Birchfield’s
case although he entered a guilty plea he argued the Fourth
Amendment prohibited criminalizing his refusal to submit to the
test. The State District
Court rejected his argument and the State Supreme Court
affirmed. Bernard who was charged with test refusal in the first
degree, the Minnesota District Court dismissed the charges, but
the State Court of Appeals reversed it and the State Supreme
Court affirmed. In Beylund’s case, the State District Court
rejected his argument that his consent to the blood test was
coerced by the officer’s warning and the State Supreme Court
affirmed (Findlaw, n.d.).
On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Birchfield v. North Dakota that a state statute may not
criminalize the refusal to submit to a blood test in the absence
of a warrant because, while the Fourth Amendment allows for
warrantless breath tests incident to an arrest for drunk driving,
warrantless blood tests incident to an arrest violate the Fourth
Amendment (Oyez, n.d.). The opinion of the court was
delivered by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. with 7-1 majority.
Justice Alito explained, "Because breath tests are significantly
less intrusive than blood tests and, in most cases, amply serve
law enforcement interests, we conclude that a breath test, but
not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a
lawful arrest for drunk driving. As in all cases involving
reasonable searches incident to arrest, a warrant is not needed in
this situation" (Harrell, n.d.).
According to the Supreme Court, warrantless breath tests are
permissible under the search incident arrest exception to the

5. Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement because they do not
implicate significant privacy concerns (Oyez, n.d,). It involves
minimal physical intrusion to capture something that is exposed
to the public, limited information is revealed, and beyond arrest
does not enhance any embarrassment. However, the blood tests
do invade privacy of the subject because they are more
physically invasive requiring piercing of the skin, the sample
that is
taken can be preserved, and can be used to obtain more
information about the subject (Oyez, n.d.).
Due to the ruling of Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania ruled on July 11, 2017 that blood cannot
be taken without a warrant or consent and that it applies to both
alcohol a drug related DUI’s (Fairlie, 2017). Prior to this ruling
Birchfield’s applicability had not yet been addressed by the
court to drug related DUI investigations. As a result, regardless
of the suspected substance believed to be affecting a DUI
arrestee, Birchfield is applicable and requires a blood test be
permitted and required by a valid warrant, case specific
necessity, or by voluntary and un-coerced consent (Fairlie,
2017). In conclusion, the Supreme Court has drawn a line
between blood tests and breath tests destabilizing the law of
exceptions to the warrant requirement and made the jobs of both
police officers and lower courts more difficult
.
References
Birchfield v. North Dakota. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved June 10,
2018, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-1468
Birchfield v. North Dakota. (n.d
.). Findlaw. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-
supreme-court/14-1468.html
Fairlie, S. (2017). Birchfield Ruling Applies to Drug Cases Too.

6. Retrieved from http://fairlielaw.net/birchfield-ruling-applies-to-
drug-cases-too/
Harrell, H. (n.d.). Birchfield v. North Dakota (United States
Supreme Court): Expectation of Privacy for Blood Samples in
DUI Arrests. Retrieved from
https://www.radford.edu/content/cj-bulletin/home/november-
2016-vol-11-no-1/birchfield-v-north-dakota.html
�Was this the court that had original jurisdiction?
�
�
�Has the Court’s ruling in this case affected you, or someone
you know, personally?
�Bluebook Citation