Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"We have pointed out before that the section itself contains limitations with regard to the procedure for extracting blood. The question as to whether the conviction of a person based on the result of the involuntary blood-test taken after extracting blood deprived a person of his liberty without due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the American Constitution arose for consideration in Breithaupt v. Abram (1957) 352 US 432 : 1 L Ed. 2nd 448. The petitioner in that case while driving a pickup truck was involved in a collision with a passenger car. Some of the passengers of the car were killed and the petitioner was seriously injured. A pint whisky bottle almost empty, was found in the glove compartment of the truck. The petitioner was, therefore, taken to a hospital and while he was lying unconscious, the smell of liquor was detected on his breath. On a request by the patrolman, and attending physician, while the petitioner was unconscious, withdrew a sample of about 20 cubic centimeters of blood by use of a hypodermic needle. Subsequent laboratory analysis showed that the blood contained about 17% alcohol. The petitioner was thereafter charged with involuntary manslaughter and in the trial, testimony regarding the blood test and its result, was admitted into evidence, despite the petitioner's objection. This testimony included the evidence of an expert that a person with 17% alcohol in his blood, was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Although he was convicted, the petitioner did not appeal, but later he sought release from his imprisonment by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It was contended that the conduct of the state officers offended the "sense of decency" and that it was "brutal" and "offensive" and was therefore "shocking" to the "conscience". It was also said that the conduct did not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency. This argument was not accepted by a majority of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Mr. Justice Clark who delivered the opinion of the majority observed as follows :

"....... there is nothing 'brutal' or 'offensive' in the taking of a sample of blood when done, as in this case, under the protective eye if a physician. To be sure, the driver here was unconscious when the blood was taken, but the absense of conscious consent, without more, does not necessarily render the taking a violation of a constitutional right; and certainly the test administered here would not be considered offensive by even the most delicate. Furthermore, due process is not measured by the yardstick of personal reaction or the sphygmogram of the most sensitive person, but by that whole community sense of "decency and fairness". That has been woven by common experience into the fabric of acceptable conduct ..... The blood test procedure has become routine in our every day life. It is a ritual for those going into the military service as well as those applying for marriage licenses. Many colleges require such tests before permitting entrance and literally millions of us have voluntarily gone through the same, though a longer, routine in becoming blood donors".