Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

US Supreme Court to decide: Does warrantless blood test violate 4th Amendment?

By: SYLVIA HSIEH, BridgeTower Media Newswires//September 26, 2012//

US Supreme Court to decide: Does warrantless blood test violate 4th Amendment?

By: SYLVIA HSIEH, BridgeTower Media Newswires//September 26, 2012//

Listen to this article

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a police officer who drew a DUI suspect’s blood after he refused to consent violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Court will review a ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court excluding the evidence and finding that the warrantless search violated the defendant’s right against search and seizure.

Tyler McNeely was arrested for drunk driving after he failed field sobriety tests and refused to consent to a breath test. A police officer took the defendant to a nearby hospital to draw a blood sample, which was done about 25 minutes after the officer first stopped him for speeding.

The results showed the defendant’s blood-alcohol level was well over the legal limit.

The trial court suppressed the evidence based finding that the police were required to get a warrant.

The state argued that the test fell within the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement because the blood-alcohol evidence would have naturally dissipated if the test wasn’t done quickly.

But the state supreme court disagreed.

“It requires more than the mere dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence to support a warrantless blood draw in an alcohol-related case. Officers must reasonably believe that they are confronted with an emergency where the delay in obtaining a warrant would threaten the destruction of evidence,” the court said.

“There were no ‘special facts’ in this case, other than the natural dissipation of blood-alcohol, that indicated the arresting patrolman was faced with an emergency where the delay in obtaining a warrant would threaten the destruction of evidence. He was not justified, therefore, in failing to seek a warrant before drawing [the] defendant’s blood over his refusal to consent,” it said.

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected this term.

Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425. Certiorari granted Sept. 25, 2012. State v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012).

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests