The United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely, decided today, stated that it would not create a blanket rule that the natural metabolization of alcohol in a person’s blood, breath, or urine is enough of an emergency to justify a warrantless blood test. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires states to produce a warrant before conducting a search where a person has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy (including bodily fluids). However, there are certain exceptions to the warrant requirement, one of which is “exigent circumstances.” Exigent circumstances exist in emergency situations when obtaining a warrant would be impractical. Preventing the destruction of evidence may constitute an exigent circumstance, but it is up to the courts to review the facts on a case-by-case basis. Today the Supreme Court said alcohol dissipation is not an exigent circumstance.
Tyler McNeely’s truck crossed the center line and an officer stopped him on suspicion of drunk driving. McNeely could not perform the field sobriety tests and refused to take the breathalyzer test to measure his blood alcohol content. The officer then arrested McNeely and took him to a hospital for a blood test. The officer read a standard Implied Consent form to McNeely and explained that his refusal to take the blood test would result in the immediate revocation of his driver’s license and could be used against him in future criminal charges. McNeely refused the test and the officer directed a hospital lab tech to take his blood sample anyway. The officer never obtained a search warrant for McNeely’s blood. The State of Missouri argued that all drunk-driving stops involve alcohol being metabolized in the blood and thus an emergency exception to the warrant requirement always exists. The Supreme Court concluded that the emergency must be “objectively reasonable” when looking at the totality of the circumstances. There were no other pressing factors that precluded the officer from seeking a search warrant. The Supreme Court stated that alcohol’s metabolizing nature is not enough to create a general rule that undermines a person’s constitutional right to be free from an unlawful search of their body.
McNeely will have sweeping consequences for DWI laws in Minnesota and may result in thousands of blood, breath, and urine tests being thrown out. If you are stopped on suspicion of drunk driving, it is best that you speak with an attorney before answering any questions or taking any tests. Contact Brandt Kettwick Defense at 763-421-6366 for a free, no-obligation consultation.