Citation

Ormrod DJ. Conn. Law Rev. 2021; 53(2): 509-538.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, University of Connecticut Law Review)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court recognized a distinction between substitute methods for testing blood alcohol contents: pursuant to a DUI arrest, breathalyzer tests may be performed without a warrant, whereas blood draws (even if pursued for the exact same reason) may not. My focus here, in this Note, is on roadside saliva swab testing, a method used by police to determine whether a driver is driving under the influence of cannabis. Ultimately, this Note argues for warranted saliva swab testing, resting on a straightforward analogy: A is more like B than it is like C--or, in this particular case, saliva swabs are more like blood draws than breathalyzer tests. And, for this reason, as with blood draws, officers should be required to procure a warrant prior to conducting a roadside saliva swab test.

Available:
https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/500

Copyright © 2021 The author

Language: en