Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
Thomas v. New York
444 U.S. 891·Supreme Court of the United States·1979
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins,
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
October 9, 1979
No. 78-6773.
Thomas v. New York.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice White,]
Mr. Justice White,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins,
dissenting.
At issue in this appeal is whether admission into evidence of one’s refusal to submit to a blood test to determine inebriation is contrary to the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition of compelled testimonial incrimination. In the instant case the New York Court of Appeals, in finding the refusal to be admissible into evidence, upheld in the face of constitutional challenge the state statute authorizing admission. Other state courts have reached identical conclusions. E. g., Commonwealth v. Robinson, 229 Pa. Super. 131, 324 A. 2d 441 (1974); State v. Meints, 189 Neb. 264, 202 N. W. 2d 202 (1972). But the courts of some States have decided that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the evidence be held inadmissible. E. g., Dudley v. State, 548 S. W. 2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); State v. Andrews, 297 Minn. 260, 212 N. W. 2d 863 (1973), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 881 (1974).
Because of this conflict among state courts as to the reach of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled testimonial evidence, I dissent from the Court’s decision to dismiss this appeal.