The Case of Schmerber V

The case of Schmerber v. California involved the use of real evidence (blood) extracted from the defendant, which was analyzed and used against him. In this driving-while-intoxicated case, the Supreme Court held the blood that was drawn from the defendant without his consent:

A) was properly used to show that he had been driving with a blood-alcohol level that was above the legal limit and that the use of this kind of real evidence did not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
B) should not have been used to help convict him even though it qualified as real evidence and the blood did not produce a deceptive result.
C) should not have been used to help convict him because he did not give consent to the extraction of this type of real evidence and the effect was to require him to testify against himself.
D) did not qualify as real evidence and should not have been admitted under that theory.