Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Schmerber v. California

Schmerber v. California

 * This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page. 

The result was: scheduled for Today's featured article/June 20, 2016 by — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)



Schmerber v. California,, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution. In a 5–4 opinion, the Court held that forced extraction and analysis of a blood sample is not compelled testimony; therefore, it does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court also held that intrusions into the human body ordinarily require a search warrant. However, the Court ruled that the involuntary, warrantless blood sample taken in this case was justified under the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception because evidence of blood alcohol would be destroyed by the body's natural metabolic processes if the officers were to wait for a warrant. In 2013, the Supreme Court clarified in Missouri v. McNeely that the natural metabolism of alcohol in the bloodstream is not a per se exigency that would always justify warrantless blood tests of individuals suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. Because the Court's ruling in Schmerber prohibited the use of warrantless blood tests in most circumstances, some commentators argue that the decision was responsible for the proliferation of breathalyzers to test for alcohol and urine analyses to test for controlled substances in criminal investigations.
 * Most recent similar article(s): ???
 * Main editors:
 * Promoted: October 31, 2015
 * Reasons for nomination: 50th anniversary
 * Support as nominator. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:, I think this has already been scheduled for June 20 (see Today's featured article/June 20, 2016). However, I very much appreciate the thoughtful nomination! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weird....must have missed that...epic fail then :P Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it's fine to run anything in WP:TFARP or anything that's a placeholder in WP:TFAA (such as this article) through TFAR, when the time comes. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case I'll officially lodge my support vote for this article's appearance on June 20. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in: yes, that's just a placeholder, so we know a) there's a potential TFAR for this date, or b) it might be a good idea to schedule a certain article on a certain date. Similar to what I do with POTD. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, good article, topic and timing, but I think it needs the Dank blurb miracle (to shorten), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)