The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine advances the rights granted by the Constitution by preventing the government from coercing people into giving them up. Recently, in Williamson County Circuit Court, a Nashville attorney argued that the request for a blood sample following a traffic stop of a driver suspected of DUI presented an Unconstitutional Conditions issue on the part of the government.
The Court recognized the attorney’s argument as novel. The basic premise of the argument was that requesting a suspected DUI driver to submit to a blood/alcohol test forced the driver to choose between asserting his Fourth Amendment right (to be free from unwarranted government intrusion) and his Fourteenth Amendment right (property interest in his or her driver’s license). If a person is suspected of driving under the influence, the police cannot force the driver to give a blood sample without a warrant supported by probable cause and signed by a neutral judicial officer—unless there are exigent or emergency circumstances warranting a blood draw, or the person gives their voluntary and unequivocal consent to the blood draw. If there is not a warrant and there are no exigent or emergency circumstances, the driver can refuse. However, in Tennessee, refusal to consent to a blood draw is considered an “Implied Consent Violation” and can result in the loss of a driver’s license for a period depending on the person’s prior DUI record. In Tennessee, it is routine for the police to ask a driver suspected of driving under the influence to consent to a blood test, and, if he does not consent, to read him the Implied Consent Form which states that his refusal to submit to the test will result in loss of his license. Under the current law, it is possible for a person who is not, in fact, driving under the influence to lose his license simply for not consenting to a blood test. In other words, a jury could find the person not guilty of DUI, and he would still lose his license for refusal to submit to the blood test.
Thus, a driver requested to give a blood sample, in a situation where there is no warrant and no exigent circumstances, can either: (1) assert his or her Fourth Amendment right to not consent to give a blood sample and lose his or her license for an implied consent violation, or (2) assert his or her Fourteenth Amendment property right in his or her driver’s license, giving up the right to refuse to consent to a blood draw.
The State argues it is not presenting an Unconstitutional Conditions problem because the State contracts with a driver at the time he obtains his license that, in exchange for the privilege of driving, he agrees to submit to a blood test if lawfully suspected of driving under the influence. (See our previous post on this matter).
The Court has reserved ruling to give the State time to respond to the attorney’s argument.
