Schmerber V. California, 1966 was an important case because it argued against self-incrimination, denial of the petitioner’s rights, and the due process claim. The petitioner was convicted of driving while impaired based on a blood sample that was taken without Armando Schmerber’s consent.
The Supreme Court decided to take this case because there had been no other case in which the Court had decided whether or not a search warrant was needed in order to take a blood sample and whether or not the blood sample would be allowed as evidence. The Court ruled that a warrant was not needed if the officer had reasonable cause and the Court allowed the blood sample to be used as evidence. The case was argued in April 25, 1966 and came to a conclusion in June 20, 1966. …show more content…
The majority opinion was given by Justice William J. Brennan Jr who. gave a brief background of what happened leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision. The due process clause claim was rejected as a result of a previous case, Breithaupt V. Abram, 1957, in which the due process clause claim was overruled. The privilege against self-incrimination claim was dismissed because the blood test was neither a part of the petitioner’s argument nor evidence against the petitioner in the form of an act or writing. The right to counsel claim was not considered violated because Schmerber’s claim was limited to the incorrect work performed by the police officer. Justice John Marshall Harlan II and Justice Potter Stewart had concurrences stating that the blood withdrawal provided no testimonial compulsion and that the case should not implicate with the Fifth Amendment. Justice Byron R. White and Justice Tom C. Clark had nothing to add to the Court’s final