MADD Attorney attends SCOTUS hearing, shares first-person account and predictions

by Adam Vanek, MADD General Counsel

Last week, I had the honor and privilege to represent MADD in Washington, D.C. attending oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota, et. al. MADD filed an Amicus Curiae Brief, or Friend of the Court, in this matter supporting law enforcement and the States’ fight against drunk driving.

In front of a packed courtroom, the Justices addressed whether States, without a warrant, may impose minor criminal sanctions — usually misdemeanors — against a suspected drunk driver who withdraws his or her implied consent and refuses to submit to a blood alcohol concentration test after arrest. North Dakota, Minnesota and at least 10 other states make it a criminal offense for a driver who has been arrested on probable cause for driving while impaired to refuse a BAC or chemical test.

The genesis of these criminal penalties, arises out of pure frustration by legislators and law enforcement that administrative sanctions, such as license revocation, no longer serve as a deterrent because offenders will continue to drive.

The Supreme Court considered three cases: Birchfield v. North Dakota, Bernard v. Minnesota, and Beylund v. North Dakota, in which the offenders argue that imposing minor criminal penalties for withdrawing their implied consent — refusing a warrantless BAC test after arrest — violates their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Make no mistake, the evidences shows that all three offenders were drunk and behind the wheel. No one denies that much.

The offenders’ argument is two-fold: (1) a BAC test is a search that intrudes one’s bodily integrity, and therefore unreasonable; and (2) the threat of minor criminal sanctions is a punitive form of coercion that disqualifies an offender’s consent. In fact, the offenders argue that all BAC tests require a warrant regardless of circumstance.

Most Supreme Court journalists agree that counsel for both sides of the argument — the offenders and conversely, counsel for North Dakota and Minnesota — struggled to articulate their arguments. In all fairness, unless you're the Deputy Solicitor General, this was probably the first time counsel for both sides argued in the hallowed halls of justice — the Holiest of Holies for lawyers — in front of living legends such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sam Alito, Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas. It was truly an awe inspiring experience.

Since I was a mere observer sitting “bench” and just like any football fan on Monday, I am playing a little arm chair quarterback regarding some “plays” that were not called on fourth and one.

1. The Fourth Amendment protects a citizen from unreasonable search and seizure, not from every search.

In all three cases, the offenders were arrested for suspicion of drunk driving. The arresting officers performed field sobriety tests on the offenders, observed the smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, inability to walk a straight lines and in some cases failed the field breath test. The officers had more than probable cause to conduct a search and request a BAC test. The Justices asked why North Dakota or Minnesota could not obtain an “insta-warrant” over the telephone, similar to Wyoming which can obtain a warrant within five minutes.

Practically speaking, at what point does an “insta-warrant” just become a perfunctory exercise? If an officer can call a magistrate and get a warrant in less than five minutes, then obviously the magistrate has full faith and credit that the officer had probable cause and is merely making sure that the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed. The idea that the magistrate serves a neutral body, especially when a warrant can be obtained over the telephone in less than five minutes, is an antiquated model that does not practically translate in today's on-demand world. In other words, the “insta-warrant” has merely become a superficial hoop that law enforcement is obliged to jump through for show.

2. The State’s compelling interest to protect the safety of its citizens far outweighs any minimal right to privacy of the offender.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court acknowledged that drunk driving is a serious public safety threat. Challenge after challenge, the Supreme Court reminds the public, “The increasing slaughter on our highways [caused by drunk driving], most of which should be avoidable, now reaches the astounding figures only heard of on the battlefield.” Counsel for the offenders did not dispute the tragedy of drunk driving fatalities, but argued that individual privacy was more important than saving lives.

Justice Kennedy responded, “Innocent lives are at stake, why can't we just say that this falls within the special-needs exception.” It should be undisputed that States and the Federal government have a moral obligation to stop the “slaughter on our highways,” and that this serves as a special needs exception to the general warrant requirement. Justice Alito broke it down to brass tax by stating the minor privacy inconvenience is not what’s being disputed but rather, “The real gripe with the test is that they just don't want their blood-alcohol levels tested.”

3. In the history of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has never drawn an absolute line in the sand regarding the Fourth Amendment and should not do so now.
MADD argues in its Amicus that the Supreme Court has never required a per se ban on all criminal penalties when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. In fact the Supreme Court has uniformly rejected such categorical rules in favor of a case-by-case analysis based on the totality of the circumstances. And although neither the offenders’ nor the States’ briefs address the distinction between a breath test and a blood draw, the Justices spent a considerable amount of time asking counsel on both sides about the practical difference.

Justice Breyer asked, “And I don’t find this very much in the briefs, and it surprises me… Why isn’t there a big difference between a blood test and a Breathalyzer?”

Justice Kagan added, “This [breath test] is about as uninvasive as a search can possibly be.” While this may seem a promising line of questioning regarding breath tests, the opposite holds true for a blood draw. Justice Kagan continued, “There’s something very different in the level of invasion [between a breath test and a blood draw], and certainly it’s appropriate to look at the invasiveness of a search when deciding whether to do a search incident to arrest.” Unfortunately, counsel for both States’ response to such distinction fell short.

The Deputy Solicitor General tried to save this argument by emphasizing the importance of a blood draw when it comes to drugged driving, but was cut off by Justice Breyer saying that a warrant could be obtained in the time it takes to transfer the offender to the hospital for testing.

The decision?

While I am not Carnac the Magnificent, I predict the Supreme Court will determine that a warrantless breath test survives constitutional muster as a search incident to arrest. However, and in light of the Missouri v. McNeely opinion two years ago and the statements made by the Justices, a warrantless blood draw may be another matter.

With the recent passing of Justice Scalia, a 4-4 decision would uphold the lower State Supreme Courts’ rulings and serve as a temporary victory. Therefore, MADD’s fight to eliminate drunk driving is far from over. We must continue to wage our Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving in the courts, in the Capitol buildings and in the hearts and minds of every American.

Join with MADD to say states SHOULD have the right to impose modest criminal penalties for refusing a BAC test.

PowerTalk 21 Round Up - Videos, photos and fun!

Today, we recognize PowerTalk 21®, a day dedicated to inspiring intentional, ongoing, and potentially lifesaving conversations between parents and kids about underage drinking and alcohol. And, boy, do we have plenty to talk about!

When it comes to PowerTalk 21®, the results are ones we can’t see. When parents take the time to show and tell their kids about underage drinking, it prevents the number of underage drinking deaths from climbing higher. And one more death is one too many! That point was visually driven home at the national PowerTalk 21® press conference in Dallas.

National President Colleen Sheehey-Church opened up the conference, sharing how the loss of her son drives her to help other parents avoid her grief.

MADD volunteer Steve Mason touched on the importance of talking with your kids about not riding with a drinking driver when he shared the loss of his 20-year-old son, Chris.

Dr. Robert Turrisi, a groundbreaking researcher into teens and drinking, shared his data detailing how parents can effectively combat the pressures teens face to drink with a simple game of SHOW & TELL during an online virtual Town Hall yesterday and at the press conference. If you missed the virtual Town Hall yesterday, listen to it now. Or watch a brief video where he throws down a challenge - put the lifesaving information available in our Power of Parents handbooks into the hands of 10 million parents.

Here are pictures from the Dallas event, as well as other PowerTalk 21® events across the country.



 MADD CEO Debbie Weir and National President Colleen Sheehey-Church at the national PowerTalk 21® press conference in Dallas.  The set-up for the press conference included pictures of two young men killed by drinking drivers, as well as 101 chairs and graduation caps representing the 101 young people in Texas killed in alcohol-related crashes.
 The media gearing up for the press conference, one of several held across the country for PowerTalk 21® Day.  Street teams took the PowerTalk 21® literally on their backs to share it with Dallas parents visting Klyde Warren Park.
 Another street team member shares lifesaving information with a Dallas resident. Dallas Assistant Chief Gary Tittle and other officers met MADD CEO Debbie Weir and National President Colleen Sheehey-Church. Chief Tittle stressed the department's no tolerance policy for udnerage drinking and adults who provide underage drinkers with alcohol.
Former MADD Chairman and Nationwide Insurance Associate Vice President of Consumer Safety Bill Windsor spoke at the Dallas event. PowerTalk 21 is part of the Power of Parents program, sponsored by Nationwide. Chairs and graduation caps representing the 101 Texas young people killed in alcohol-related crashses last year.


 In Arizona, 35 Dunkin Donuts locations shared yummy breakfast treats and lifesaving information.  Check out these delicious MADD cupcakes, part of the Arizona celebration.
 Juno Beach is celebrating PowerTalk 21! The Town Council (Left to Right: Mayor Jason Haselkorn, Council Member Bill Greene, Council Member Ellen Andel, Madd SE FL Program Specialist David Ganim, Vice Mayor Jim Lyons andTown Manager Joe LoBello) recognized PowerTalk 21 with an official proclamation.  Windsor Locks Connecticut, a community that six years ago lost a resident who was a passenger in a single car crash with a drinking driver, declared April 21st officially PowerTalk 21® Day.
 In Florida, MADD joined the LIVE radio podcast Sober Smash, taking calls from people in Wisconsin to Miami.  

PowerTalk 21® may end today, but the conversations between parents and kids must remain ongoing. Learn valuable strategies and tips to create conversations kids will actually hear by downloading the new parents pocket guide today.

When you do, you will automatically be entered to win an Amazon echo, Kindle Fire HD, or one of two $50 gift cards for a date night. You can earn additional entries by taking one of our new interactive quizzes, too!

The winners will be announced via email and social media after April 30th.

Voices of Victims: Cole Kilgore

By Kathy Kilgore Beeler

When one of my family members calls someone a “Cole,” it means something special.

It’s family shorthand for calling someone Compassionate, Obedient to God, Loving and Enthusiastic toward life – all such core personality traits of my handsome son Cole, who was killed while riding with a drinking driver.

Cole Hansen Kilgore was my little stinker, my only child. He was charismatic, fun-loving and always kept me on my toes. He had a sense of humor that charmed everyone around him. He was a city boy who lived in the country, so he knew how to both skateboard and skeet shoot. He was compassionate, and always tried to take care of me, even when it wasn’t his responsibility. Most importantly, he was the only person who called me “Momma.”

People gravitated towards Cole. He simply pulled people into his stratosphere, and you felt lucky to be there with him.

Cole wasn’t a perfect child. He was perfect to me, but Cole had his struggles with underage drinking and drugs. When I found out, I talked to him and moved him to a new city to be around new friends; we worked together to turn his life around. I remember speaking with him about the dangers of alcohol when he was 12 or 13 years old. I wish I had spoken to him sooner, but I never imagined alcohol would be on his radar at such an early age.

When Cole turned 19, I could tell that he was really trying to turn his life around. He was looking to start college classes and worked with a construction company in the summer.  He never wanted me to worry; he repeatedly told me, “Momma, everything is okay. I’m okay.”

On June 4, 2011, Cole was still living at home, and he shouted out that he was going down the road to visit his friend and would be right back. I told him I loved him, and he yelled it back before driving two miles down the road. Just two miles…

Cole went down to a friend’s house where a group of older guys were sitting outside drinking. Even though Cole was sober, he made the choice to get into a truck with a man who had been drinking. Intoxicated, the driver recklessly drove more than 100 miles per hour before careening into a guardrail, hitting the gas tank on the driver’s side. The truck went up in flames, engulfing the driver and Cole. The driver died at the scene, but my Cole managed to pull himself out of the vehicle.

When I arrived at the hospital I saw my handsome boy with burns covering 95 percent of his body. Cole looked at me and said, “I’m sorry; it was stupid.” He knew that he had broken my heart. “Momma, I’m a burnt chicken,” he joked in typical Cole fashion, trying to make me laugh. His nickname in high school was ‘Chicken Legs.’ My sweet boy was in pain, and was put in a medically induced coma. After being life-flighted to a larger hospital, I said I love you to Cole for the last time.

In my mind, I kept thinking the doctors would save him, that somehow this great miracle would occur, and I could just switch places with him.

But my baby boy with the bluest eyes imaginable took his last breath. We stood by his side, still praying for that miracle that never arrived.

Before Cole passed away, I never thought about joining a group like MADD. That’s exactly what MADD is – a family you never knew you needed – until you suddenly need them desperately.

Today, I try to share my story to prevent this from happening to others.

This April, I’m partnering with MADD in honor of Cole. April 21st is MADD’s PowerTalk 21 Day, the national day for parents to begin ongoing conversations with their children about the dangers of alcohol, and the dangers of riding with a drinking driver. Parents, please use MADD’s Power of Parents tools and have these lifesaving conversations with your children. Download the free materials at

Voices of Victims: Hannah Rebekah Morales

When Hannah Rebekah Morales entered a room, it lit up, not only from her smile and personality, but from her willingness to help and inspire others.  She was loved by her parents, family, teammates, friends, coaches, and really anyone she came into contact with. Hannah had a passion for sports ever since her mother could remember. Hannah’s connection to sports allowed her to travel and compete against teams across the country. Her parents found joy in watching their daughter play sports, and spent many hours traveling and cheering her on.

On December 31, 2015, Hannah went to a New Year’s Eve party with a group of friends. There was underage drinking at the party and even though people knew the driver had been drinking, they didn’t stop him from driving. At just 16 years old, Hannah was killed after being ejected from a vehicle driven by a driver with a BAC of .208, more than twice the legal limit. The driver survived the crash. He pled guilty to criminally negligent homicide, and was sentenced to 5 years of probation. Hannah’s parents were devastated by the courts decision, they believe that probation shouldn’t be an option when someone kills someone else in a drunk driving crash.  They continue to remain positive in honor of Hannah but would also like to see laws change to reflect the seriousness of the crime.

Hannah had never been in trouble in the past, her parents hadn’t had a reason to worry about what she was doing that night. Anita, Hannah’s mother, wishes she would have spoken to her daughter more about underage drinking, and encourages all parents to talk to their adolescents about the possible consequences. She believes drunk driving is a selfish act that is completely preventable. She hopes that Hannah’s story will prevent others from making the same mistakes and save lives.

This week, MADD shares PowerTalk 21, a day dedicated to creating intention, ongoing, and potentially lifesaving conversations between parents and kids about alochol. Join us to learn valuable strategies for how to talk with your child or teen about not drinking and not riding with a drinking driver.

LIVE with CEO Debbie Weir for PowerTalk 21

MADD CEO and parent of two Debbie Weir takes the PowerTalk 21® drinking myths quiz and shares key insights into some dangerous ideas about alcohol and kids. Take the quiz with us to be automatically entered to win an Amazon Echo, Kindle Fire HD, or one of two gift cards for a date night!

If you missed it, last week we learned more about parenting styles and how they influence a child's attitudes toward alcohol. Watch it now!

Items 1 - 5 of 13  123Next