Abstract
I. Introduction to Warrantless Urine Testing
II. Development of the Law As It Applies to Chemical Testing in Drunk and Drugged Driving Cases ... A. What Are Blood, Breath, and Urine Tests? ... 1. Description of Blood Draws ... 2. Description of Breath Testing ... 3. Description of Urine Testing ... B. Evolution of the Warrant Requirement for Blood and Breath Testing in Criminal Cases ... 1. The Dissipation of Alcohol Does Not Constitute an Emergency Exception to the Warrant Requirement ... 2. The Split Between Blood and Breath Testing as a Search Incident to Arrest ... 3. The Oregon and Wisconsin Appellate Courts Have Held the Natural Metabolization of a Controlled Substance Justifies Warrantless Testing as an Emergency Exception
III. Analysis of the Emergency Exception and a Search Incident to Arrest as It Applies to Warrantless Urine Testing ... A. Analysis of Warrantless Urine Tests Under the Emergency Exception Doctrine ... B. State v. Thompson’s Application of the Birchfield Test to Urine Testing and an Analysis of the Thompson Holding ... 1. Incorrect Application of the Reasonableness Standard ... 2. Incorrect Application of the Embarrassment Prong ... C. Should the Urine Test Fall Under the Search-Incident-to-a-Valid-Arrest Doctrine? A Reconsideration of the Birchfield Test in the Context of Urine Testing
IV. Conclusion
Recommended Citation
Mariah Haffield,
Is Warrantless Urine Testing Constitutional?—Resaonableness of Warrantless Urine Testing in Cases Involving Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs,
97 Neb. L. Rev. 860
(2018)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol97/iss3/6