Docket: 11-1425
|
Opinion Date:
April 17, 2013
|
Judge: Sotomayor
|
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
|
McNeely, stopped for speeding and crossing the centerline,
declined to take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration
(BAC). He was arrested and taken to a hospital. The officer never attempted to
secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent, but the officer directed a
lab technician to take a sample. McNeely’s BAC tested above the legal limit,
and he was charged with driving while intoxicated. The trial court suppressed
the test result, concluding that the exigency exception to the warrant
requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that McNeely’s blood
alcohol was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an
emergency. The Missouri Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. The
Court looked to the “totality of circumstances,” declining to announce a per se
rule. When officers in drunk-driving investigations can reasonably obtain a
warrant before having a blood sample drawn without significantly undermining
the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so.
Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such that dissipation
will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its
facts. Blood testing is different in critical respects from other
destruction-of-evidence cases; BAC evidence naturally dissipates in a gradual
and relatively predictable manner. Because an officer must typically obtain a
trained medical professional’s assistance before having a blood test conducted,
some delay between the time of the arrest and time of the test is inevitable
regardless of whether a warrant is obtained.