Should Police Get a Search Warrant Prior to Draw Blood During on a DUI Suspect?
Missouri Supreme Court said that officers must typically use a search warrant if they are attempting to draw blood from a DUI suspect on Tuesday. This decision is expected to shape privacy rights on public roads. And if you are in an accident, contact a car accident lawyer.
Missouri argued with the justices that the Constitution does not require police to take the time to get judicial approval prior to drawing blood for a DUI exam because alcohol dissipates rapidly in the bloodstream. Missouri Supreme Court disagreed with the argument; they stated that officers typically must seek a warrant to proceed with that action.
The Supreme Court’s decision was not too welcomed, according to the SF Gate, lower courts are divided on the decision. That decision “actually requires police officers to stand by and allow the best, most probative evidence to be destroyed during a drunk-driving investigation,” Missouri argued in its appeal.
FBI statistics state that more than 1.4 million people are arrested per annum in the United States for driving under the influence. Such figures signal that the case may have nationwide day-to-day implications.
Tyler G. McNeely, a defendant in a DUI case states in court papers that he filed, that the decision will leave 27 states directly unaffected. Those states have laws barring nonconsensual blood drawing in the absence of a warrant.
In 2010 a state highway patrolman in southeast Missouri pulled over McNeely for speeding. He refused to take a breath test after he failed a field sobriety test. Because McNeely had refused to take the exam, the officer transported him to a local medical laboratory for a blood test. The test was drawn against his will by a technician.
According to the SF Gate, McNeely’s lawyers say the Supreme Court shouldn’t categorically exempt drunken driving cases from the normal rule that police must get a warrant for intrusive bodily searches.
“While every drunk-driving investigation will involve the eventual dissipation of a suspect’s blood alcohol content, not every case will involve a risk of losing evidence of intoxication before search,” argued McNeely, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
This is the first ruling on the situation since 1966 on the Supreme Courts last ruling on the issue. During that time the court decided that the warrant requirement didn’t apply in the case of a man whose blood was drawn in a hospital about two hours after he was involved in an automobile accident.
Reviewed by Chris H. in 2012.