Missouri v. McNeely
569 U.S. 141 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not create a per se exigency justifying an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. Instead, exigency must be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- At approximately 2:08 a.m., a Missouri police officer stopped Tyler McNeely's truck for speeding and crossing the centerline.
- The officer observed that McNeely showed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol.
- McNeely performed poorly on field-sobriety tests and refused to take a portable breath test.
- The officer arrested McNeely and began transporting him to the station house.
- After McNeely stated he would refuse a breath test at the station, the officer diverted to a nearby hospital for a blood test.
- At the hospital, McNeely refused to consent to a blood draw.
- Despite McNeely's refusal, the officer directed a hospital lab technician to take a blood sample without a warrant.
- Subsequent testing revealed McNeely's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.154 percent, well above the legal limit.
Procedural Posture:
- Tyler McNeely was charged in Missouri state trial court with driving while intoxicated (DWI).
- McNeely filed a motion to suppress the results of the warrantless blood test, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding that the situation did not present an exigency justifying the warrantless search.
- The State of Missouri appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, which transferred the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court.
- The Missouri Supreme Court, as the state's highest court, affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood does not create a per se exigency.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream create a per se exigency that justifies a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw in every drunk-driving case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No, the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream does not create a per se exigency that justifies a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw in every drunk-driving case. The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is subject to an exigent circumstances exception, which applies when the needs of law enforcement are so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable. While the gradual and natural dissipation of alcohol is a factor, it does not automatically create an emergency in every case. The Court, relying on the principles of Schmerber v. California, held that whether a warrantless blood test is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances, which includes considering technological advances that allow for faster warrant processing. A categorical rule would ignore circumstances where police can reasonably obtain a warrant without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Chief Justice Roberts
No, a per se rule is not appropriate, but a more straightforward rule should apply. The proper rule is that if there is time to secure a warrant before blood can be drawn, the police must seek one; if an officer could reasonably conclude that there is not sufficient time, a warrantless blood draw is permissible. The biological certainty of alcohol dissipation creates a compelling need for a search because critical evidence is being constantly destroyed. However, because there is typically a delay between a traffic stop and a blood draw (due to transport to a medical facility), there may be time to obtain a warrant. This modified rule provides more guidance to officers than a simple 'totality of the circumstances' approach.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes, the natural metabolization of alcohol in the body inevitably destroys evidence of a crime and therefore constitutes a per se exigent circumstance. The rapid destruction of evidence is inherent in every drunk-driving case, making the situation exigent from the moment of arrest. Just as police do not need to wait for evidence to be completely destroyed in other contexts (e.g., flushing drugs), they should not have to wait here. The majority's case-by-case approach is unworkable for officers in the field who cannot know all the relevant facts, such as the suspect's intoxication level or how long a warrant will take to obtain.
Analysis:
This decision rejects a bright-line rule that would have significantly expanded police power in DUI investigations, reaffirming the importance of judicial oversight under the Fourth Amendment. By mandating a case-by-case 'totality of the circumstances' analysis, the Court requires police to justify forgoing a warrant in each specific instance, considering factors like the efficiency of local warrant procedures. The ruling may incentivize jurisdictions to adopt faster, electronic warrant systems to ensure they can obtain BAC evidence in a timely and constitutional manner. Ultimately, the case marks a refusal to dilute the warrant requirement for bodily intrusions, even in the face of the serious public safety threat posed by drunk driving.
