South Dakota v. Neville
459 U.S. 553 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The admission of a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test into evidence at trial does not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination because the refusal is not a coerced testimonial communication.
Facts:
- After observing Mason Neville's car fail to stop at a stop sign, two police officers in Madison, South Dakota initiated a traffic stop.
- As Neville exited his car, he staggered and fell against the vehicle, and the officers smelled alcohol on his breath.
- Neville informed the officers that he did not have a driver's license because it had been revoked following a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated.
- Neville failed several field sobriety tests, including touching his finger to his nose and walking a straight line.
- The officers arrested Neville, read him his Miranda rights, and asked him to submit to a blood-alcohol test.
- Officers warned Neville that if he refused the test, his license could be revoked for one year.
- Neville refused to take the test, stating, “I’m too drunk, I won’t pass the test.”
- The officers repeated the request twice more, and Neville continued to refuse.
Procedural Posture:
- Neville filed a pretrial motion in the South Dakota Circuit Court (the trial court) to suppress all evidence of his refusal to take the blood-alcohol test.
- The Circuit Court granted the suppression motion.
- The State of South Dakota, as appellant, appealed the suppression order to the South Dakota Supreme Court (the state's highest court).
- The South Dakota Supreme Court, with Neville as appellee, affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the state statute allowing admission of the refusal violated both the federal and state privileges against self-incrimination.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a defendant's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test into evidence at trial violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The admission of a defendant's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test does not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination, not against every difficult choice a suspect must make. Here, the state did not compel Neville to refuse the test; it offered him a choice between submitting to a test it could have constitutionally compelled under Schmerber v. California, or refusing the test and facing consequences. Because the underlying blood test is not testimonial and can be compelled, offering a choice to refuse with attendant penalties is not unconstitutional coercion. The refusal is a physical act of non-compliance with a legitimate police request, and its use as evidence of guilt is permissible.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
The Court should not have decided this issue. The dissent argues that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction because the South Dakota Supreme Court's decision rested on an adequate and independent state ground. The state court held that the statute violated both the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article VI, § 9 of the South Dakota Constitution. Because the judgment is fully supported by the interpretation of state law, any ruling on the federal constitutional issue by the U.S. Supreme Court is merely an advisory opinion. The majority presumes, without basis, that the state court's interpretation of its own constitution is dependent on federal law, which is contrary to principles of federalism.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a key question left open by Schmerber v. California, solidifying the state's authority to use a suspect's refusal to take a DUI test as evidence of guilt. By focusing its Fifth Amendment analysis on the absence of 'compulsion' rather than the ambiguous 'testimonial vs. physical' evidence distinction, the Court provides a clearer framework for future cases. The ruling significantly strengthens the prosecutorial toolkit in DUI cases, allowing an inference of guilt to be drawn from a suspect's refusal, thereby pressuring suspects to comply with testing and aiding convictions even without scientific evidence of intoxication.
Unlock the full brief for South Dakota v. Neville