Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Nontestimonial physical evidence (blood-sample rule)
Leading case
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
How courts have described it
concluding that furnishing a blood sample is not testimonial
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 670 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2012)
holding that drawing blood did not constitute testimonial self-incrimination because blood is identifying characteristic
Williams v. Schario, 93 F.3d 527 (8th Cir. 1996)
holding withdrawal of blood for alcohol analysis is not "testimonial" or "communicative" and therefore does not violate Fifth Amendment privilege
Ronald E. Termunde v. Mr. Scovell, Head of M.I.S., 1, 5 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1993)
holding that facts disclosed by a blood sample tested for alcohol content are not “testimonial” and therefore do not implicate the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination
Russo v. City of Hartford, 341 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D. Conn. 2004)
holding that blood test evidence and chemical analysis were not testimonial or otherwise communicative
Padgett v. Ferrero, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2003)
holding there is no Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when the State seeks to obtain physical evidence from a suspect that does not involve testimonial compulsion or forced communication
State v. Mattson, 698 N.W.2d 538 (S.D. 2005)
holding that blood test results are admissible because they are nontestimonial evidence unprotected by the Fifth Amendment
State v. Van Dyke, 223 P.3d 465 (Utah Ct. App. 2009)
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.