| Italic Title: | force |
| Litigants: | South Dakota v. Neville |
| Arguedate: | December 8 |
| Argueyear: | 1982 |
| Decidedate: | February 22 |
| Decideyear: | 1983 |
| Fullname: | South Dakota, Petitioner v. Mason Henry Neville |
| Usvol: | 459 |
| Uspage: | 553 |
| Parallelcitations: | 103 S. Ct. 916; 74 L. Ed. 2d 748; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 129 |
| Prior: | State v. Neville, 312 N.W.2d 723 (S.D. 1981) |
| Holding: | A suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test may be admitted as evidence of guilt at trial. |
| Majority: | O'Connor |
| Joinmajority: | Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Dissent: | Stevens |
| Joindissent: | Marshall |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV |
South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prosecutors may use a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test as evidence of guilt and that the introduction of such evidence at trial does not violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.[1]
In Schmerber v. California (1966), the Supreme Court held that the extraction and analysis of blood samples does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.[2] However, in the years following Schmerber, a split of authority emerged in state courts with regard to whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self incrimination prohibited the use of a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood test as evidence of guilt.[3] South Dakota, for example, passed a statute that stated a person's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test “may be admissible into evidence at the trial.”[4]
On the evening of July 19, 1980, Mason Henry Neville was stopped by two Madison, South Dakota police officers after they observed Neville's car drive past a stop sign without stopping.[5] When officers asked Neville to step out of his car, he "staggered and fell against the car to support himself."[6] After failing several field sobriety tests, officers placed Neville under arrest.[7] Officers asked Neville if he would submit to a blood-alcohol test, but he refused, stating “I'm too drunk, I won't pass the test.”[7]
At trial, Neville filed a motion to suppress all evidence associated with his refusal to take a blood alcohol test on the grounds that it violated his privilege against self incrimination.[8] The Supreme Court of South Dakota agreed that admitting evidence of Neville's refusal to take the test violated his privilege against self incrimination,[9] and state prosecutors appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[10]
In a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court held that prosecutors could use a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood test as evidence of guilt, and the introduction of this evidence at trial does not violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.[1] Writing for the Court's majority, Justice O'Connor concluded that "the state did not directly compel respondent to refuse the test."[11] Additionally, Justice O'Connor wrote that a "simple blood-alcohol test is so safe, painless, and commonplace" that a suspect would not feel coerced to refuse the test.[11]
Justice O'Connor also ruled that suspects who refuse to submit to a blood test are not entitled to Miranda warnings about the consequences of refusing the test because officers made it clear that a refusal to submit to a test may lead to "adverse consequences."[12] Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which they argued that the Court in Schmerber intended to adopt a broad and liberal interpretation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.[13]