Missouri v McNeely
Missouri v. McNeely (2012)
I. Facts
A Missouri police officer stopped Tyler McNeely after observing it exceeding the posted speed limit and repeatedly crossing the center line. The officer noticed McNeely’s bloodshot eyes, his slurred speech, and a smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely performed poorly on a battery of field sobriety tests, and he declined to take a Breathalyzer test. When McNeely indicated he refuse a breath sample for testing, the officer took him to a nearby hospital for blood alcohol test. The officer explained to McNeely that under Missouri’s implied consent law, refusal to submit voluntarily to the blood test would lead to an immediate one-year suspension of his driver’s license and could be used against him in any future prosecution. The testing of the blood indicated that the blood alcohol level was significantly above the legal limit. McNeely had challenged the blood test evidence claiming that there should have been a search warrant before ordering a blood sample.
II. Legal Provisions
4th Amendment
III. Legal Questions
Does the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream establish an exigency that suffices on its own to justify an exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving investigations?
Drunk-driving cases present a per se exigency, the arguments and the record do not provide the Court with an adequate analytic framework for a detailed discussion of all the relevant factors that can be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of acting without a warrant. In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant
IV. Outcome
A warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.
V. Concurring
Justice Kennedy: the way in which it
I. Facts
A Missouri police officer stopped Tyler McNeely after observing it exceeding the posted speed limit and repeatedly crossing the center line. The officer noticed McNeely’s bloodshot eyes, his slurred speech, and a smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely performed poorly on a battery of field sobriety tests, and he declined to take a Breathalyzer test. When McNeely indicated he refuse a breath sample for testing, the officer took him to a nearby hospital for blood alcohol test. The officer explained to McNeely that under Missouri’s implied consent law, refusal to submit voluntarily to the blood test would lead to an immediate one-year suspension of his driver’s license and could be used against him in any future prosecution. The testing of the blood indicated that the blood alcohol level was significantly above the legal limit. McNeely had challenged the blood test evidence claiming that there should have been a search warrant before ordering a blood sample.
II. Legal Provisions
4th Amendment
III. Legal Questions
Does the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream establish an exigency that suffices on its own to justify an exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving investigations?
Drunk-driving cases present a per se exigency, the arguments and the record do not provide the Court with an adequate analytic framework for a detailed discussion of all the relevant factors that can be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of acting without a warrant. In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant
IV. Outcome
A warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.
V. Concurring
Justice Kennedy: the way in which it