Are warrantless blood tests constitutional? Supreme Court will decide

April 17, 2013

Later this spring, the United States Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in a case that could profoundly affect the rights of those who are accused of drunk driving in Virginia and across the nation. The issue at stake in the case is whether the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure by the police, prohibits alcohol blood tests without a warrant.

What happened in the case?

The case, Missouri v. McNeely, started when a highway patrol officer in Missouri stopped Tyler McNeely for speeding. During the course of the stop, the officer found reason to suspect that McNeely had been drinking. Because of this, he asked him to perform a battery of field sobriety tests, which were performed poorly. The officer then asked McNeely to take a breath test, but he refused.

The officer then drove McNeely to a hospital and asked a staff member to take a sample of his blood over his objections. The blood test results indicated that McNeely's blood alcohol level was about twice the legal limit. He was then arrested and charged with drunk driving.

Before McNeely's trial, his attorneys successfully excluded the results of the blood test from evidence, by arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, because the police failed to get a warrant first.

However, on appeal, this decision was reversed. The prosecutors successfully argued that getting a warrant would lead to destruction of evidence, as McNeely's body would have metabolized the alcohol in the time it would take to get a warrant. Since this was an emergency situation, the prosecution argued that police were justified in taking the blood without a warrant.

The case was then appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which agreed with the trial court that a warrant was required. Prosecutors then appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. Although how it will rule is unknown, the justices seemed critical of the prosecutors' arguments that alcohol metabolism would constitute a sufficient emergency to excuse the need to get a warrant, especially for an intrusive procedure like a blood test. The court's decision is expected in late spring.

An attorney can help

If the Supreme Court decides that warrants are required for alcohol blood tests, it would strengthen the rights of those accused of drunk driving. Regardless of how the court decides, if you have been charged with DUI, it is important to assert your rights or they may be considered waived, which can severely weaken your defense. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to insure that your rights are protected.

Article provided by John J. Rice, Attorney & Counselor at Law
Visit us at www.johnjrice.com