# Breithaupt v. Abram > Supreme Court of the United States · February 25, 1957 · 352 U.S. 432 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421385 ## Case - **Full name:** Breithaupt v. Abram, Warden - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** February 25, 1957 - **Citations:** 352 U.S. 432; 77 S. Ct. 408; 1 L. Ed. 2d 448; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1255 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Douglas - **Judges:** Clark, Warren, Douglas, Black - **Cited by:** 620 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Reported overruled by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) — not on the Supreme Court's list. - Negative treatments: 2 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421385 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding “the driver here was unconscious when the blood was taken, but the absence of conscious consent, without more, does not necessarily render the taking a violation of a constitutional right.” Reasoning in footnote number 2: “it might be a fair assumption that a driver on… - recognizing that “there is nothing ‘brutal’ or ‘offensive in the taking of a sample of blood when done, . . . under the protective eye of a physician” and holding that “a blood test taken by a skilled technician is not such ‘conduct that shocks the conscience’ . . . [or] such … - recognizing that "there is nothing `brutal' or `offensive' in the taking of a sample of blood when done, ... under the protective eye of a physician" and holding that "a blood test taken by a skilled technician is not such `conduct that shocks the conscience' ... [or] such a m… - explaining that those entering the military, marrying, or going to college must take blood tests and millions voluntarily donate blood so the ―blood test procedure has become routine in our everyday life‖ ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Douglas, with whom Mr. Justice Black joins, dissenting. The Court seems to sanction in the name of law enforcement the assault made by the police on this unconscious man. If law enforcement were the chief value in our constitutional scheme, then due process would shrivel *443 and become of little value in protecting the rights of the citizen. But those who fashioned the Constitution put certain rights out of the reach of the police and preferred other rights over law enforcement. One source of protection of the citizen against state action is the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our decisions hold that the police violate due process when they use brutal methods to obtain evidence against a man and use it to convict him. Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 ; Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 . But the conception of due process is not limited to a prohibition of the use of force and violence against an accused. In Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556 , we set aside a conviction where subtle, nonviolent methods had been used to exact a confession from a prisoner. For it was obvious that coercion might be the product of subtlety as well as of violence. We should take the same libertarian approach here. As I understand today’s decision there would be a violation of due process if the blood had been withdrawn from the accused after a struggle with the police. But the sanctity of the person is equally violated and his body assaulted where the prisoner is incapable of offering resistance as it would be if force were used to overcome his resistance. In both cases evidence is used to convict a man which has been obtained from him on an involuntary basis. I would not draw a line between the use of force on the one hand and trickery, subterfuge, or any police technique which takes advantage of the inability of the prisoner to resist on the other. Nor would I draw a line between involuntary extraction of words from his lips, the involuntary extraction of the contents of his stomach, and the involuntary extraction of fluids of his body when the evidence obtained is used to convict him. Under our system of government, police cannot compel people to furnish the evidence necessary to send them to prison. *444 Yet there is compulsion here, following the violation by the police of the sanctity of the body of an unconscious man. And if the decencies of a civilized state are the test, it is repulsive to me for the police to insert needles into an unconscious person in order to get the evidence necessary to convict him, whether they find the person unconscious, give him a pill which puts him to sleep, or use force to subdue him. The indignity to the individual is the same in one case as in the other, for in each is his body invaded and assaulted by the police who are supposed to be the citizen’s protector. I would reverse this judgment of conviction. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9421385. Public record. Not legal advice.