How U.S. Supreme Court and Nevada Supreme Court Decisions Have Shaped DUI Defense

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) charges are taken seriously in Nevada, as they are across the United States. Over the years, both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Nevada Supreme Court have issued landmark rulings that have significantly shaped how DUI cases are prosecuted and defended. These legal precedents directly affect how evidence is gathered, what constitutes probable cause, and how DUI defense attorneys can challenge the prosecution’s case.

In this blog post, we will explore key decisions from both courts that have shaped DUI defense law, how these rulings influence the way DUI cases are handled in Nevada, and how attorney Josh Tomsheck uses these legal changes to craft strong defenses for his clients.

Key U.S. Supreme Court Decisions That Have Shaped DUI Defense

1. Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016)

In the landmark case Birchfield v. North Dakota, the U.S. Supreme Court held that while law enforcement can require a breath test without a warrant in DUI cases, a warrant is required for a blood test. The court distinguished between breath and blood tests, ruling that breath tests are less intrusive and therefore do not require a warrant. Blood tests, however, were deemed to be more invasive, and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies.

This ruling has had a profound impact on DUI cases nationwide, including Nevada. Before this decision, many states, including Nevada, treated both breath and blood tests similarly. Now, Nevada law enforcement must obtain a warrant to conduct a blood test unless the driver consents to the test voluntarily.

How Josh Tomsheck Can Help: Attorney Josh Tomsheck can challenge DUI cases where a blood test was taken without a warrant. If law enforcement violated the Birchfield ruling and obtained a blood sample without proper authorization, Josh can argue to have that evidence suppressed, potentially weakening the prosecution’s case significantly.

2. Missouri v. McNeely (2013)

In Missouri v. McNeely, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of warrantless blood draws in DUI cases. The court ruled that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not automatically create an “exigent circumstance” that justifies a warrantless blood test. Essentially, the ruling states that law enforcement must obtain a warrant for a blood draw unless there are specific, compelling reasons that make getting a warrant impractical.

Before McNeely, many states—including Nevada—allowed warrantless blood tests under the argument that waiting for a warrant could result in the destruction of evidence as the driver’s BAC decreased over time. This ruling changed how DUI cases involving blood tests are prosecuted by emphasizing the need for a warrant.

How Josh Tomsheck Can Help: Josh Tomsheck has successfully used Missouri v. McNeely to challenge the validity of blood test evidence in DUI cases. If law enforcement conducted a blood draw without a warrant and without legitimate exigent circumstances, Josh can file motions to suppress that evidence. Suppressing crucial evidence like a blood test can often lead to reduced charges or even a dismissal.

3. Schmerber v. California (1966)

One of the earliest DUI-related decisions, Schmerber v. California, set the foundation for how courts view DUI blood tests under the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a blood test taken without a warrant, but only under “exigent circumstances.” In Schmerber’s case, the arresting officers believed that the delay in obtaining a warrant would lead to the destruction of evidence (the dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream).

Schmerber was foundational because it established the principle that DUI tests are a form of “search” under the Fourth Amendment and are subject to the same constitutional protections as any other search.

How Josh Tomsheck Can Help: While Schmerber permitted warrantless blood draws under exigent circumstances, it set strict limits. If law enforcement in your DUI case argues that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood test, Josh Tomsheck can investigate whether those circumstances truly existed or whether they violated your Fourth Amendment rights.

Nevada Supreme Court Decisions Shaping DUI Defense

1. Byars v. State (2014)

One of the most significant Nevada Supreme Court rulings impacting DUI defense is Byars v. State. In this case, the court ruled that Nevada’s implied consent law (which allowed law enforcement to conduct warrantless blood draws under certain conditions) violated the Fourth Amendment. The decision was heavily influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Missouri v. McNeely and Birchfield v. North Dakota.

Before this ruling, Nevada drivers were automatically deemed to have consented to blood tests by virtue of driving in the state. The Byars decision clarified that Nevada law enforcement must now obtain a warrant or valid consent for blood tests unless an emergency situation exists.

How Josh Tomsheck Can Help: As a seasoned Nevada DUI defense attorney, Josh Tomsheck frequently uses Byars v. State to challenge cases where blood tests were conducted without a warrant. If law enforcement relied on Nevada’s outdated implied consent law to justify a blood draw, Josh can argue to have that evidence excluded, potentially undermining the prosecution’s case.

2. State v. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong) (2010)

In State v. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a DUI suspect has the right to refuse field sobriety tests. The court ruled that while Nevada drivers must submit to chemical testing (like breath or blood tests) after a DUI arrest, there is no specific legal requirement to submit to field sobriety tests. Field sobriety tests, like walking in a straight line or standing on one leg, are considered voluntary.

This decision has significant implications for DUI defense in Nevada, as it clarifies that drivers have the right to refuse field sobriety tests without automatically facing legal penalties for doing so.

How Josh Tomsheck Can Help: If you were coerced or misled into performing field sobriety tests, Josh Tomsheck can use the Armstrong decision to challenge the validity of those tests. Field sobriety tests are often subjective and prone to errors, so excluding these results can weaken the prosecution’s case against you.

3. State v. Sample (2003)

In State v. Sample, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints. The court ruled that DUI checkpoints are permissible under the Nevada Constitution, provided they meet certain criteria. These criteria include advance notice to the public, proper signage, and ensuring that the checkpoint’s primary purpose is not simply to apprehend drunk drivers but also to promote road safety.

This decision solidified the legality of DUI checkpoints in Nevada but also imposed strict guidelines to prevent unconstitutional searches and seizures.

How Josh Tomsheck Can Help: If you were arrested at a DUI checkpoint, Josh Tomsheck can review whether law enforcement followed the proper procedures outlined in State v. Sample. If the checkpoint failed to meet the required criteria, Josh can challenge the constitutionality of your arrest and potentially have the charges dropped.

How Attorney Josh Tomsheck Uses These Legal Precedents to Help You

Attorney Josh Tomsheck is a Nationally Board-Certified Criminal Trial Specialist with a deep understanding of DUI law and a track record of successfully defending clients against DUI charges in Nevada. The legal landscape surrounding DUI cases is constantly evolving, and Josh stays up-to-date on both U.S. Supreme Court and Nevada Supreme Court rulings to provide the best defense possible.

When you hire Josh Tomsheck, he will:

Analyze the Arrest: Review whether the stop, arrest, and any tests conducted were in line with recent legal rulings, including those requiring warrants for blood tests.
Challenge Evidence: Use court decisions like Birchfield and Byars to suppress improperly obtained evidence, such as warrantless blood draws or illegally conducted field sobriety tests.
Fight for Your Rights: Ensure that law enforcement followed all legal procedures during your DUI arrest, leveraging decisions from both the U.S. Supreme Court and Nevada Supreme Court to fight for the best possible outcome in your case.

Call Us Today to Protect Your Future

A DUI conviction can have serious and lasting consequences on your life, but with the right defense strategy, you can challenge the charges and protect your future. Attorney Josh Tomsheck has the knowledge and experience to navigate the complex legal landscape of DUI defense, using important court rulings to help reduce or dismiss charges.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for DUI in Nevada, don’t wait. Call us today to schedule a consultation with Josh Tomsheck and get the expert legal representation you need to fight your DUI charges.