Supreme Court to Decide Legality of DWI Warrantless Blood Tests

November 06, 2012

The United States Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a case that will have a far-reaching effect on the 1.4 million people who are arrested each year for driving while intoxicated. The issue that the court will decide is whether individuals who have been stopped on suspicion of DWI have a Fourth Amendment protection against compulsory blood tests.

The case is called Missouri v. McNeely. It began when a Missouri highway patrol officer pulled over Tyler McNeely for speeding. During the stop, the officer claims that McNeely exhibited signs of intoxication. In order to test for intoxication, the officer asked McNeely to step out of the car and submit to various field sobriety tests, which McNeely failed. Since McNeely failed the tests, the officer asked him to submit to a blood test.

McNeely refused the blood test. At this point, the officer drove him to a clinic and instructed a medical staff member to draw blood from McNeely, despite his protests. The results of the blood test showed that McNeely's blood alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit and he was charged with DWI.

Before McNeely's trial, his lawyers asked the court to prohibit the results of the blood test from being used as evidence. In support of their request, the attorneys argued that McNeely's test results are inadmissible as evidence, because they were obtained without a search warrant.

Prosecutors, on the other hand, said that the blood test was admissible. They argued that in the time it would take to obtain a warrant, more of the alcohol in McNeely's system would be metabolized. Thus, officers were justified in drawing the blood without a warrant, because any delay would lead to destruction of evidence and possible weakening of their case.

The Missouri trial judge agreed with McNeely's attorneys and barred the blood test results from evidence. When the prosecution appealed, the appeals court reversed the trial court's decision. However when the case was taken to the Missouri Supreme Court, it agreed that that the officer was not justified in ordering a blood test without a warrant, because there were no special facts or "exigent circumstances" that would justify taking the blood in a hurry.

Nationwide, courts cannot decide on whether the dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream creates enough urgency to legally justify the drawing of blood without a warrant. Now the case is before the United States Supreme Court and it will make the ultimate decision.

Effect of Ruling for Texas DUI Suspects Unclear

When the Supreme Court issues a ruling, the effect it will have on Texas law is not clear. Many counties in Texas periodically implement a "no refusal" program where DWI suspects are not allowed to refuse blood tests. However, since the blood drawn under this program is pursuant to a search warrant that is issued by a judge, it is unlikely that the court's decision will affect the program's legality.

In addition, blood may be drawn without a warrant in Texas for various DWI offenses such as intoxication manslaughter, third-time DWI offenses and intoxication assault cases. However, the issue in McNeely case is different: whether the metabolism of blood is sufficient reason to allow warrantless drawing of blood. Since the case's issue is different and does not address the legality of similar laws, it is unclear what effect, if any, the case will have on this particular Texas law.

A decision in the case is not expected until spring of 2013, so it remains to be seen how it will affect the rights of Texas DWI suspects. However, it is very unlikely to change the reality that drunk driving is an offense that carries severe penalties. If you are accused of DWI, it is therefore important to present a strong defense and protect your rights. An experienced criminal defense attorney can guide you through the process and work to obtain the best possible outcome.

Article provided by Law Office of Jeffrey R. Gilbert, P.C.
Visit us at http://www.jeffgilbertlaw.com