Forced blood test for a drunk-driving suspect? Supreme Court to step in.

A Missouri trooper ordered a blood test for a suspected drunk driver who had refused one, without having a warrant. US Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide if that action was justified. The case could help define the scope of protections against unreasonable searches.

The US Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will take up a case examining whether police officers need a warrant before administering an involuntary blood test to a suspected drunk driver.

Although the case deals with a relatively routine interaction between police and motorists, the underlying legal issue will help define the scope of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches involving forced blood tests.  

The case, Missouri v. McNeely (11-1425), stems from an October 2010 traffic stop by a Missouri state highway patrol officer near Cape Girardeau.

The officer pulled Tyler McNeely over at about 2 a.m. for allegedly exceeding the speed limit by 11 miles per hour. During the routine stop, Officer Mark Winder noticed signs that Mr. McNeely might be intoxicated. He asked the driver to step out of the car and take four field sobriety tests. After McNeely performed poorly, the trooper asked the driver to submit to an alcohol breath test.

McNeely refused.

The trooper then transported McNeely to a medical clinic. After the driver refused to submit voluntarily to a blood test, Officer Winder directed a clinic staff member to draw blood without the suspect’s permission.

The test showed McNeely’s blood-alcohol level was well above the legal limit. He was charged with driving while intoxicated.

If convicted, it would be McNeely’s third DWI offense and bring a potential four-year prison term.

Prior to his trial, McNeely’s lawyer filed a motion to suppress the blood sample on grounds that the arresting officer had failed to first obtain a search warrant.

Prosecutors fought the motion, arguing that the officer was justified in ordering the blood-test immediately without a warrant because the longer he waited to perform the test the more the alcohol in the suspect’s system would be metabolized. In effect, any delay would mean the continued destruction of evidence.

Officer Winder also stated later that he had read a recent article that Missouri law was changed to waive the requirement to obtain court-authorization prior to performing a blood test.

The trial judge agreed with McNeely’s lawyer and barred prosecutors from using the blood test results.

A state appeals court reversed. But the Missouri Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the trial judge’s decision that the police were not justified in ordering a blood test without first obtaining a warrant.

The Missouri Supreme Court based its decision on a 1966 US Supreme Court precedent that allowed police under certain exigent circumstances to conduct a warrantless blood test.

In the 1966 case, the officer was dealing with the aftermath of a traffic accident. He had to investigate the accident scene and transport the defendant to the hospital for treatment. Under those “special facts,” the US Supreme Court said there was no time for the officer to contact a judge and obtain a search warrant prior to drawing the necessary blood for the blood-alcohol test.

In the McNeely case, there was no accident and no need to transport anyone to the hospital for emergency treatment. Instead, the question in the McNeely case is whether police officers are justified in ordering a warrantless blood test solely because any delay in performing such a test will result in the body’s natural destruction of the evidence.

State supreme courts have reached divergent decisions on that issue. High courts in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Oregon have ruled that the rapid dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream creates a sufficient exigency to justify a blood test without a warrant.

In contrast, the Utah Supreme Court and the Iowa Supreme Court have ruled that additional “special facts” are needed beyond just the natural process of dissipation to justify a warrantless blood test.

The case will likely be set for oral argument in January or February.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.