# Schmerber v. California > Supreme Court of the United States · June 20, 1966 · 384 U.S. 757 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423256 ## Case - **Full name:** Schmerber v. California - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 20, 1966 - **Citations:** 384 U.S. 757; 86 S. Ct. 1826; 16 L. Ed. 2d 908; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1129 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harlan - **Judges:** Foetas, Black, Brennan, Harlan, Warren, Douglas, Stewart - **Cited by:** 5,045 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by State v. Syx, 190 Ohio App. 3d 845 (2010). - Negative treatments: 2 - Distinguished by: 6 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423256 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that the “compulsory 17 administration of a blood test . . . plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a 18 search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment[,]” and also explaining that because 19 “[s]earch warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings,… - stating that the “compulsory administration of a blood test . . . plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment[,]” and also explaining that because “[sjearch warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings,. . . abs… - holding blood sample to test for alcohol content not testimonial, and noting "both federal and state courts have usually held that it offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, or measurements, to write or speak for identification, to a… - stating that in deciding whether an intrusive body search is permissible, the court must consider whether the officer had a clear indication that incriminating evidence would be found, whether exigent circumstances existed if no warrant was obtained, and whether the officer ex… - finding “the attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content” without a warrant was reasonable incident to Schmerber’s arrest, given the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, unde… ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Harlan, whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins, concurring. In joining the Court’s opinion I desire to add the following comment. While agreeing with the Court that the taking of this blood test involved no testimonial compulsion, I would go further and hold that apart from this consideration the case in no way implicates the Fifth Amendment. Cf. my dissenting opinion and that of Mr. Justice White in Miranda v. Arizona, ante, pp. 504, 526. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423256. Public record. Not legal advice.