| dbo:abstract
|
- Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that involuntary blood samples, taken by a skilled technician to determine intoxication, do not violate substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This case was only the second time the Court considered whether police could forcibly enter inside a suspect's body to extract evidence. Writing for a 6–3 majority, Justice Tom C. Clark argued that blood tests were necessary as a matter of public policy to ensure traffic safety on roads and highways, and that "modern community living requires modern scientific methods of crime detection." Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas both wrote dissenting opinions in which they argued that the involuntary blood sample taken in this case was "repulsive" and violated substantive due process. (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 16513 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:align
| |
| dbp:arguedatea
|
- 0001-12-12 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:arguedateb
| |
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Breithaupt v. Abram, (en)
|
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-02-25 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Paul H. Breithaupt, Petitioner v. Morris Abram, Warden (en)
|
| dbp:holding
|
- Involuntary blood samples, taken by a skilled technician to determine intoxication, do not violate substantive due process. (en)
|
| dbp:joindissent
|
- Black (en)
- Black, Douglas (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Reed, Frankfurter, Burton, Harlan, Brennan (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
| |
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
|
- Certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Mexico, Breithaupt v. Abram, 58 N.M. 385 . (en)
|
| dbp:quote
|
- "The increasing slaughter on our highways, most of which should be avoidable, now reaches the astounding figures only heard of on the battlefield." (en)
|
| dbp:source
|
- —Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the majority of the Court (en)
|
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:width
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that involuntary blood samples, taken by a skilled technician to determine intoxication, do not violate substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This case was only the second time the Court considered whether police could forcibly enter inside a suspect's body to extract evidence. Writing for a 6–3 majority, Justice Tom C. Clark argued that blood tests were necessary as a matter of public policy to ensure traffic safety on roads and highways, and that "modern community living requires modern scientific methods of crime detection." Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas both wrote dissenting opinions in which they argued (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Paul H. Breithaupt, Petitioner v. Morris Abram, Warden (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
