Skip to main content

United States Supreme Court Rules on Warrantless DUI Blood Draws

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the natural dissipation of alcohol in blood alone does not constitute exigent circumstances per se to justify a warrantless blood draw in DUI cases where the suspect does not consent. Without a warrant or consent from the suspected drunk driver, a blood draw is a violation of the driver’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Prior to this decision, Missouri v. McNeely, police officers in California were generally not required to obtain a warrant in order to draw blood for measuring blood-alcohol content in drunk-driving cases.

In this landmark case, Missouri v. McNeely, Tyler McNeely was pulled over on the grounds of suspicion of driving under the influence. After refusing twice to take a breathalyzer, he was taken to a hospital where the police ordered his blood drawn without his consent or a warrant. The officer had not made an attempt to obtain a warrant because he thought that Missouri law did not require it.

The opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor returned to the 1966 Supreme Court decision of Schmerber v. California, where the Court held that a person’s blood is protected under the Fourth Amendment. However, the ruling provided an exception for warrantless blood draws where there were “exigent circumstances” in drunk-driving cases. Without a concrete definition of what constituted exigent circumstances, law enforcement officers were left to their own discretion in interpreting this element.

Although the state of Missouri argued that the dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream resulted in valuable evidence being lost creating exigency to justify the blood draw, the Supreme Court disagreed for several reasons. First, the Court concluded that in most cases, there is ample time to request and receive a warrant, especially if there is more than one officer involved in the DUI investigation or available at the scene. Second, the dissipation of blood occurs in a predictable manner, which can be calculated based on an individual’s physical characteristics like gender, height, and weight.

“In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so,” Sotomayor wrote.

Currently, there are electronic search warrant systems in place, in which a search warrant can be obtained in about one hour. This is roughly the same amount of time it may take for the officer to transport a suspect to a hospital and order a blood draw. The McNeely decision will not necessarily prevent blood draws from occurring at every refusal nor reduce the number of DUI arrests, but it will ensure that law enforcement officers follow procedural guidelines prior to making a DUI arrest. This not only protects citizens from unreasonable arrests at the sole discretion of law enforcement officers, but it will also protect those law enforcement officers from claims of unlawful arrests.

As a result of this decision, Jayne Law Group, P.C. is presently, and will continue to, challenge all warrantless, non-consensual blood draws in DUI cases, through motions to suppress.  See: www.jaynelawgroup.com

The case is: Missouri v. McNeely, Docket 11-1425 (April 17, 2013).
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Second Circuit Holds that Personal Benefit is Not Required for Insider Trading

Insider trading, or “ securities fraud ,” is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1348 and 15 U.S.C. § 10(b) As the Supreme Court explained in Dirks v. SEC , someone engages in insider trading under §10(b) if they breach a fiduciary duty by disclosing material, nonpublic information in exchange for a personal benefit. However, the Second Circuit’s recent holding in United States v. Blaszczak rejected this personal benefit requirement, at least as it relates to § 1348. The result? The range of conduct that triggers criminal liability under § 1348 is far bigger than the range of conduct that triggers liability under § 10(b). Stated another way, Blaszczak makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after Title 18 securities fraud because - unlike Title 15 securities fraud - they do no need to prove the existence of a personal benefit.
Post a Comment
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court Eases Rules for Miranda Warning

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer . Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, which six other Justices joined in full. Justice Thomas concurred in part and concurred in the judgment; Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment. The Court held that a fourteen-day break in custodial interrogation ends the Edwards v. Arizona rule which states that once a suspect invokes his Miranda rights, any subsequent waiver of the right triggered by a police request is deemed involuntary and is the result of coercion. In reversing the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Court concluded that Shatzer’s return to his normal pre-interrogation life in the general prison population for a period of two-and-one-half years before re-interrogation constituted a sufficient break in custody enable him to voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Therefore, the Edwards case did not require that Shatzer’s re-interrogation statements be suppressed, and the Court remanded the case ...
Post a Comment
Read more

California Supreme Court Narrows Exception to the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Requirement

On November 25, 2019, the California Supreme Court overturned a 17-year-old exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. People v. Lopez holds “that the desire to obtain a driver’s identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent, categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” People v. Lopez , No. S238627, 2019 WL 6267367, at *1 (Cal. Nov. 25, 2019). Before Lopez , police were “allowed … to conduct warrantless vehicle searches for personal identification documents at traffic stops when the driver failed to provide … personal identification upon request.” Id . The Court summarized the facts of Lopez as follows: police “responded to an anonymous tip concerning erratic driving.” Police were “(u)nable to locate the vehicle,” so they “asked dispatch to run a computer search of the license plate.” Police “then drove by the address where the car was registered,” but didn’t see a car matching the description. As such, p...
Post a Comment
Read more