Untitled

SA
by Samirah Alauddin1 view·Updated Dec 16, 2021
Re-use contentCreate your own

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated

  1. Hello, everyone. I will be presenting Summer Bird versus California, 384 U. S. 757.
  2. Before I start this case, I would like to introduce the following amendments.
  3. The 4th amendment protects people from unreasonable
  4. searches and seizures by the government.
  5. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury forbids double jeopardy,
  6. which is charging you for the same
  7. crime twice and protects against self incrimination.
  8. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of criminal defendants,
  9. and the Fourth Amendment leads to equal
  10. protection of the laws regarding all citizens.
  11. Facts of the case.
  12. The petitioner was Armando Sperber.
  13. The respondent is California
  14. saw a petitioner. Armando was driving around midnight when he crashed into a tree.
  15. His passenger and himself were injured and ended up getting taken to a hospital
  16. while at the accident site.
  17. In the hospital,
  18. a police officer smelled liquor on his breath
  19. and detect the other signs of intoxication,
  20. arrested him and notify him that he had the right to counsel,
  21. that he may keep silent and that anything he said was to be used against them.
  22. The police requested to take a Breathalyzer
  23. and the petitioner decline.
  24. Then the police officer requested a blood test.
  25. He declined again.
  26. But then the police officer still enforced the blood test on the petitioner.
  27. Despite his lack of cooperation on the advice of counsel,
  28. a physician collected a blood sample from the petitioner.
  29. At the officer's request,
  30. The officer was able to see that he was intoxicated due to his alcohol reading level,
  31. being 0.18.
  32. It was then submitted as evidence for
  33. the petitioners prosecutions for driving while drunk,
  34. since the chemical examination of the blood, which expressed alcoholism,
  35. was accepted as evidence despite objection from petitioners server
  36. procedural history.
  37. Once the blood test was submitted as evidence
  38. for the petitioners trial for drinking and driving,
  39. he was convicted in Los Angeles Municipal Court.
  40. Petitioners member felt the withdrawal of the
  41. blood and the emission of the analysis
  42. and evidence denied him his due price due process under the 14th Amendment.
  43. The privilege against self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment,
  44. the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment in
  45. the privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth
  46. Amendment
  47. Petitioners Murder was then found guilty in the verdict was upheld
  48. by the A pilot department of a California superior court,
  49. which dismissed his allegations of denial.
  50. Due process
  51. denial of his right to an attorney
  52. in violation of his right
  53. not to be in paralyzed to exclusive, excessive illegal search and seizure.
  54. The issue.
  55. The critical question was if the petitioner was
  56. forced to be a witness against himself due
  57. to his rights under the 4th and 14th
  58. amendment being violated from his blood being taken.
  59. Procedural history continued
  60. small birds.
  61. Lawyer argued that any taken for a lab test should
  62. qualify for search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
  63. And there wasn't a warrant present for petitioners murders, blood.
  64. He also mentioned that it shouldn't be used in court
  65. because it is violating summer birds privilege against self incrimination.
  66. The decision team was Mr Justice Douglas, Mr Justice Black,
  67. Mr Chief Justice Warren and Mr Justice Forces.
  68. When current was Mr Justice Harlan, Mr Justice Stewart, Justice Brennan,
  69. Clark and White,
  70. The Supreme Court 5 4 ruled that the petitioners for 5th,
  71. 6th and 14th amendment rights were not violated.
  72. They upheld the decision from the Breath or breathe versus Abram case 35 to
  73. US 432 in 1957 which was also a case where police officer called blood.
  74. So they withdrawn from a driver of an automobile involved in the accident,
  75. and there was ample justification for the officer's conclusion
  76. that the driver was under the influence of alcohol.
  77. They believe that the withdrawing
  78. of the blood from an unconscious suspect does not offend a sense of justice.
  79. Regarding the Fifth Amendment of self incrimination,
  80. the majority stated that involuntary blood tests
  81. could not be related to compel testimony,
  82. so petitioners murders rights were not violated here.
  83. Regarding the 6th Amendment of Rights to Counsel,
  84. the petitioner was unable to assert the privilege against self incrimination.
  85. He has no greater right because his counsel mistakenly
  86. told him that he could refuse the test.
  87. So therefore there was no Sixth Amendment violation regarding
  88. the Fourth Amendment of unreasonable search and seizure.
  89. The taking of a blood test indeed is a search
  90. and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,
  91. which requires a warrant.
  92. However, there was a warrantless search and drawn of blood,
  93. justified for many different reasons.
  94. The police officer in this case would be reasonable to think that there
  95. was no time to get a warrant without sacrificing the destruction of evidence
  96. basically like alcohol vanishing from the petitioners blood
  97. or him, silver and up.
  98. Also, the drone of blood was done in a reasonable manner,
  99. and it was done by a physician in the hospital environment.
  100. The dissenting opinion argued that the taking of the blood from petitioner was a
  101. violation of an individual's right to privacy
  102. in an individual's privilege against self incrimination.
  103. Public health analysis. The impact of the ruling on public health.
  104. The court ruled against Melbourne and argued that the
  105. officer can receive a blood test without consent,
  106. even if it's for emergency situation.
  107. Since they allow his blood to be taken and
  108. it can express how his rights were violated,
  109. it could
  110. express how his rights were violated.
  111. At the time,
  112. the officer believed it was for a probable cause because he
  113. could have endangered the life of others since he was intoxicated.
  114. While driving
  115. the impact of the ruling on society as a whole,
  116. It provides more clarity on the 4th
  117. amendment than on unreasonable searches and seizures.
  118. Since a blood test is considered unreasonable in certain situations.
  119. Uh huh.