# Schmerber v. California > Supreme Court of the United States · June 20, 1966 · 384 U.S. 757 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423260 ## 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:** Dissent by Foetas - **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/9423260 ## 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 Me. Justice Foetas, dissenting. I would reverse. In my view, petitioner’s privilege against self-incrimination applies. I would add that, under the Due Process Clause, the State, in its role as prosecutor, has no right to extract blood from an accused or anyone else, over his protest. As prosecutor, the State has no right to commit any kind of violence upon the person, or to utilize the results of such a tort, and the extraction of blood, over protest, is an act of violence. Cf. Chief Justice Warren’s dissenting opinion in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432, 440 . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9423260. Public record. Not legal advice.