Supreme Court to Decide Drunk Driving Blood Draw Case

November 09, 2012 (Press-News.org) According to FBI statistics, more than 1.4 million people are arrested each year on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. In nearly all of those cases, suspected drunk drivers will be asked to submit to a chemical test to determine their blood alcohol content.

In South Carolina, as in most other states, drivers may refuse the breath test. (Though test refusal does come with its own penalties.) In some instances, however, the police officer may be able to compel a suspected drunk driver to submit to a blood test.

The validity of warrantless blood testing of DUI suspects will soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States. This fall, the court announced that it would hear a case involving a Missouri driver who was subjected to a warrantless involuntary blood test after refusing to submit to a breath test. Oral arguments in the case are expected to be held in January or February 2013.

Missouri v. McNeely

The facts underlying the case will likely seem familiar to many South Carolina residents who have been charged with DUI.

The suspect in the case -- a man named Tyler McNeely -- was driving early one morning when he was pulled over for allegedly driving 11 mph above the speed limit. When the officer approached the car, he noticed that McNeely appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. As such, he requested that McNeely submit to field sobriety tests. When McNeely performed poorly on four different tests, the officer asked him to take a breath test to determine his blood alcohol content.

McNeely refused, so the officer brought him to a medical clinic. Although the officer had not obtained a warrant, he directed the clinic's staff to draw McNeely's blood without his permission. After the test revealed that McNeely's blood alcohol content was over the legal limit, he was charged with drunk driving.

McNeely ultimately sought to have the blood draw evidence suppressed, arguing that the warrantless blood test was a violation of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The prosecution, for its part, argued that the warrantless search was necessary because blood alcohol content dissipates so quickly. They contended that getting a warrant may take so long that there would no longer be evidence of intoxication.

The case went all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court, which ruled that police officers must, in most cases, obtain warrants before drawing the blood of suspected drunk drivers. The state of Missouri appealed that decision, which is how the case ended up before the Supreme Court of the United States.

South Carolina arrests

The case highlights an issue that underlies all criminal cases: where should governments draw the line between obtaining evidence of a potential crime and protecting the rights of the accused. After any arrest in South Carolina, it is important to have an experienced criminal defense attorney review the facts of the case to be sure the accused person's rights were not violated. If they were, the accused person may be able to challenge the arrest or evidence in court.

Article provided by Monckton Law Firm, P.A.
Visit us at www.moncktonlawfirm.com