U.S. Supreme Court to decide on warrantless blood draws for DUI cases

November 10, 2012

U.S. Supreme Court to decide on warrantless blood draws for DUI cases

When police pull a driver over for drinking and driving, they need to have reasonable suspicion that the law is being violated. Frequently, police will stop a driver suspected of drinking and driving for speeding or for swerving. After the driver is stopped and conversant, the officer will then look for indications of intoxication, such as the smell of the driver's breath, sufficient to provide probable cause to arrest the driver for being behind the wheel illegally. Often, officers use a breath test to measure the blood alcohol content of a suspected driver. A driver may refuse the test, but refusal comes with its own penalty.

A warrant is not needed to conduct a breath test because of Missouri's implied consent law. Police in Missouri may also use blood tests to determine the BAC of the driver, but it's not clear whether police officers need a warrant before administering one. As a result, an officer may force a suspected drunk driver to submit to an unwarranted blood draw. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide the issue in its current term based on a drunk-driving case from Missouri.

A decision based on the case, Missouri v. McNeely, will further define the scope of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches concerning blood draws. The decision will also settle a split among state supreme courts. The facts of the case are similar to the scenario referenced above. According to the Christian Science Monitor, an officer pulled the driver over around 2 a.m. for allegedly traveling 11 miles over the speed limit. During the stop, the officer noticed signs the driver may be intoxicated. The officer asked the driver to step out of the car to complete four field sobriety tests. After poorly performing the tests, the officer asked the driver to submit to a breath test. The driver refused and the officer transported him to a medical clinic.

At the clinic, the driver refused to voluntarily submit to a blood test, and the officer directed the medical staff to draw the driver's blood anyway. The results of the test showed the driver was above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated.

Before trial, the use of the blood test was challenged based on the officer's failure to obtain a search warrant. Prosecutors argued the longer the officer waited to obtain the test the more the alcohol within the driver's body would dissipate, therefore waiting for a warrant would jeopardize the evidence. The trial court agreed with the defense and prohibited the prosecutors from using the evidence.

The case went to the Missouri Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Missouri Supreme Court based its decision on a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the defendant driver's blood was obtained without a warrant within two hours after having been in a traffic accident. The Missouri Supreme Court explained there were no emergency circumstances or "special facts" in the recent case to justify a warrantless blood draw. The U.S. Supreme Court will have its turn to visit the issue next.

If you have been charged with DWI in Missouri, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney who can protect your legal rights.

Article provided by Featherston Law Firm
Visit us at http://www.mocriminallawattorney.com