Does Fourth Amendment Protect Against Warrantless DUI Blood Tests?

December 05, 2012 (Press-News.org) Does Fourth Amendment protect against warrantless DUI blood tests?

The United States Supreme Court recently accepted a case that could affect the rights of those who are accused of driving under the influence. The issue at stake is can a police officer force a suspect to take a blood test against his or her will without a warrant? Specifically, the decision will decide whether the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream is a sufficient cause under the Fourth Amendment to draw blood without a warrant.

The events in the case, Missouri v. McNeely, began when a highway patrol officer in Missouri pulled over Tyler McNeely for speeding. During the stop, the officer testified that certain circumstances gave him reason to believe that McNeely's was driving under the influence. Because of these suspicions, the officer gave McNeely a field sobriety test, which McNeely performed poorly. Having failed the test, the officer asked McNeely to agree to give a blood sample to measure his blood alcohol level, but he refused.

After the refusal, the officer transported McNeely to a medical clinic and ordered a technician to draw a sample of his blood. The test results showed that McNeely's blood alcohol level was almost twice legal limit. Based on the test results, McNeely was charged with DUI.

Prior to the trial, McNeely's lawyers asked the court to exclude the blood test results. They argued that the blood test results were not admissible as evidence under the Fourth Amendment, because the officer did not obtain a search warrant that would legally justify the blood test.

Prosecutors, conversely, argued that the time it would take to get a warrant would cause more alcohol in McNeely's system to dissipate, leading to the destruction of evidence. They argued that officers were legally justified in taking a blood sample without a warrant, because the metabolism of alcohol was a sufficient reason for a warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment.

The trial judge ruled in favor of McNeely and barred the blood test from being entered into evidence. When the prosecution appealed, the Missouri appeals court reversed the trial court's ruling. McNeely's attorneys appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court, which reinstated the trial court's original ruling. The court held that a warrant was required to force McNeely to take the blood test, because the metabolism of alcohol was not an "exigent circumstance" under the Fourth Amendment.

Whether the metabolism of alcohol is sufficient cause for a warrantless search has been litigated in courts nationwide. However, each court has had different opinions on this issue. The United States Supreme Court will now make the final decision.

An attorney can help

The McNeely decision is not expected until next spring. Until the case has been decided, how it will affect the rights of DUI suspects in Ohio remains to be seen. However, the decision is unlikely to change the fact that driving under the influence is a serious crime in Ohio and carries severe penalties. If you have been accused of drunk driving, it is vital to present a strong defense. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to ensure that your rights are protected.

Article provided by Heckert & Associates Co., LPA
Visit us at http://www.heckertlaw.com