In the case of South Dakota v. Neville, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test, after being lawfully arrested for driving under influence (DUI), could be used as evidence against him in court without violating his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The defendant, Schmerber Neville had refused to take a blood alcohol test following his arrest on suspicion of drunk driving and was subsequently convicted based partly on this refusal. He appealed arguing that using his refusal as evidence violated his constitutional right not to incriminate himself. However, the Supreme Court disagreed stating that since he wasn't compelled or forced into refusing the test and it was simply an option given by police officers post-arrest; therefore it did not constitute coercion or violate any constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for South Dakota v. Neville, Justice Marshall argued that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated when his refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test was used against him in court. He contended that this action constituted compelled self-incrimination, which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that there was no coercion involved because defendants could choose whether or not to take the test; instead, he believed it was inherently coercive due to potential penalties for refusing and thus should be considered unconstitutional under Miranda v. Arizona precedent. Lastly, Justice Marshall expressed concern about how such practices might disproportionately affect individuals who are less familiar with their legal rights.