U.S. Supreme Court considers warrantless drunk driving blood tests
It isn't always clear where the line between reasonable police behavior and unwarranted intrusion into a person's private life should be drawn. This is especially true in drunk driving cases, since the evidence needed to secure a conviction -- proof that the driver had a blood alcohol content above the legal limit -- can dissipate so quickly
April 04, 2013
U.S. Supreme Court considers warrantless drunk driving blood testsArticle provided by Law Office of Derek W. Emmons, P.C.
Visit us at http://www.criminallawyersanantonio.com
Whenever police suspect that a person has committed a crime, one of their biggest priorities is securing evidence to support a conviction. However, the police do not have unlimited powers in this regard. Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, every person in the United States has the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
It isn't always clear, though, where the line between reasonable police behavior and unwarranted intrusion into a person's private life should be drawn. This is especially true in drunk driving cases, since the evidence needed to secure a conviction -- proof that the driver had a blood alcohol content above the legal limit -- can dissipate so quickly. In pursuit of this evidence, police have been known to take blood samples from suspected drunk drivers without their consent and without a warrant.
Case balances privacy and exigency
The Supreme Court of the United States is about to decide whether this practice can continue. In January, it heard arguments in Missouri v. McNeely, a case questioning the constitutionality of warrantless forced blood tests performed after a suspected drunk driving offense.
The dispute centers on the case of a man who was pulled over for drunk driving but refused to take a roadside breathalyzer test. Since the police were concerned that the man's body might metabolize the alcohol in his blood before they could get a warrant, they transported the man to a local hospital for a blood test. There, ahis blood was drawn against his will.
At trial, the man and his criminal defense attorney sought to bar the use of the blood test results, claiming that the test was performed in contravention of the Fourth Amendment. The prosecution disagreed, arguing that the search was warranted by exigent circumstances. It claimed blood tests should be allowed under the same logic that permits police officers to enter a home without a warrant when there are grounds to believe that evidence is being destroyed.
During oral arguments, the State of Missouri asked the Supreme Court to create a rule that would allow police to take a warrantless blood test whenever a DWI suspect refuses a blood test. The justices seemed reluctant to go that far, though, noting that sticking a needle into a person's arm feels like a very severe intrusion into private space.
Texas drunk driving blood tests
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in the case sometime this spring. However, unless the court takes a very hard line against DWI blood testing, suspected drunk drivers in Texas will likely continue to face the possibility of having their blood drawn without their consent.
Law enforcement agencies in Texas regularly establish "no-refusal weekends" in which suspected drunk drivers who refuse breathalyzer tests are required to submit to blood testing. However, unlike in the Missouri case, Texas authorities keep a judge on-call who can issue search warrants on short notice. Texas courts have routinely upheld the validity of these searches.
If you have been charged with drunk driving in Texas, it is important to be proactive in protecting your rights. Talk to an experienced criminal defense attorney who can help ensure you are treated fairly.