Missouri v. McNeely
| Missouri v. McNeely | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided April 17, 2013 | |
| Full case name | State of Missouri, appellant, v. Tyler Gabriel McNeely, respondent. |
| Case history | |
| Prior | motion to suppress evidence granted, unreported No. 10CG-CR01849-01 (Cir. Ct. Cape Giradeau Cty., Mo., Div. II, Mar. 3, 2011); case referred to higher court, 2011 WL 2455571 (Mo.App. E.D.); motion affirmed, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012); rehearing denied, unreported (Mo. March 6, 2012); certiorari granted, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) |
| Holding | |
| The fact that blood-alcohol levels dissipate after drinking ceases, is not a per se exigency pursuant to Schmerber justifying an officer to order a blood test without obtaining a warrant from a neutral judge. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Concur/dissent | Roberts, Breyer, Alito |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amends. IV | |
Missouri v. McNeely (2013) was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under "exigent circumstances".[1] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test.
Background
Around 2 a.m. on October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a highway patrolman for overspeeding in Cape Girardeau County, Missouri.[2] McNeely failed several field sobriety tests, and was asked to submit to an alcohol breath test, which he refused.[3] He was then transported to a medical clinic where the clinic staff administered a blood test without the suspect's consent. The test showed McNeely's blood-alcohol levels to be well above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated.
Procedural history
A trial judge ruled in McNeely's favor, stating that administering a blood test without a warrant was a violation of the suspect's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. State prosecutors argued that the administration of the test without a warrant was justified as blood alcohol would be metabolized with time, and a delay in obtaining a warrant would amount to destruction of evidence, citing the "special facts" or "exigent circumstances" exception in the U. S. Supreme court decision Schmerber v. California. On appeal, the state appeals court stated an intention to reverse but transferred the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Supreme Court decision
The United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari on September 25, 2012.[4] A divided Supreme Court affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court, agreeing that an involuntary blood draw is a "search" as that term is used in the Fourth Amendment.[5] As such, a warrant is generally required. In its majority opinion, the Court found that because McNeely's "case was unquestionably a routine DWI case” in which no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood-alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, the court held that the nonconsensual warrantless blood draw violated McNeely’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person". However, the Court left open the possibility that the "exigent circumstances" exception to that general requirement might apply in some drunk-driving cases.[6]
References
- ^ Caplan, Lincoln (January 5, 2013). "Is the Driver Drunk?". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 January 2013.
- ^ Mann, Jennifer (September 25, 2012). "U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up Missouri DWI blood test case". St. Louis Post-Despatch. Retrieved 8 January 2013.
- ^ Ritchie, Warren (September 25, 2012). "Forced blood test for a drunk-driving suspect? Supreme Court to step in". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 8 January 2013.
- ^ "Missouri v. McNeely". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved 8 January 2013.
- ^ "Missouri v. McNeely" (PDF). Supreme Court. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
- ^ Id. (According the syllabus to the opinion, "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 the alcohol's dissipation will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its facts....")