Case Citator › Schmerber v. California

Schmerber v. California

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
384 U.S. 757
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
358 of 358
Citing cases (total)
6,001
Treatment dates
1978–1983
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Schmerber v. California remains partly limited in this review: all 358 flagged citations have been read, and two courts took adverse action against the rule. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia questioned Schmerber's constitutional reasoning about nonconsensual blood draws, and the Arizona Court of Appeals declined to extend its warrantless blood draw exception to a person who had not been formally arrested.
More on how this was screened

Those treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

6,001 later cases cite Schmerber v. California; 358 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Schmerber v. California?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court declined to extend Schmerber's warrantless blood draw exception to a blood sample taken before a formal arrest.

    State v. Waicelunas · Arizona Court of Appeals · filed

    The one difference between the facts of this case and those of Schmerber is that in Schmerber, an arrest had been effectuated prior to obtaining the blood sample, while in this case, as we have already determined, no arrest took place. There is a split of authority on the issue of whether an arrest is required in order to apply the Schmerber exception to the warrant requirement. See Annot. 14 A.L.R. 4th 690, § 3[a] and [b]. However, we are constrained to follow recent persuasive authority that a blood sample may not be taken from a suspect unless a formal arrest has occurred prior to the seizure. United States v. Harvey, 701 F.2d 800 (9th Cir.1983). ... We hold the blood sample taken under the facts of this case violated the fourth amendment.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The court expressed grave doubts about Schmerber's holding that an involuntary blood draw does not violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, without deciding that constitutional question.

    State v. Adams · Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · filed

    Schmerber differs from our case in that the California law does not expressly provide the right to refuse these tests as does ours; and blood tests are expressly exempt from refusal consequences here. We commend our legislature’s wisdom, exempting blood tests from the license suspension penalty of the Implied Consent Law, having grave doubts about Schmerber’s correctness on the point that blood taken from a person and used against him, does not violate his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it is taken without his consent.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Schmerber v. California and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace