As David Howes lay unconscious and injured in his hospital bed, a Dane County Sheriff’s Deputy took the curious step of reading to him the warnings from the “informing the accused” form, and then asking the form’s ultimate question: “Will you submit to an evidentiary chemical test of your blood?”

The effect of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling rejecting a per se rule allowing warrantless blood testing in suspected drunken driving cases will be felt far beyond DUI cases, defense attorneys said.

In the wake of (Wednesday's) decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely, DUI defense attorneys across the land are doing the “happy dance.”

Police must obtain a search warrant in many cases to draw blood to get evidence of drunken driving, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a divided opinion in a case involving a Missouri man.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared unwilling Wednesday to allow police to take blood samples from suspected drunk drivers without a warrant.

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.