From Dolan Media Newswires
The mere fact that blood-alcohol evidence dissipates over time does not by itself constitute an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless blood draw of a drunken driving suspect, a divided U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Missouri v. McNeely.
The decision affirms a ruling from the Missouri Supreme Court.
The defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) after he failed field sobriety tests and refused to consent to a breath test. A police officer took the defendant to a nearby hospital and directed a technician to take a blood sample after the defendant refused to give his consent to the blood test. The defendant’s blood was drawn approximately 25 minutes after the officer first stopped him for speeding. Test results showed that the defendant had a blood-alcohol content well over the legal limit.
The defendant succeeded in having the evidence suppressed in state court after arguing that the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment.
Here, the state urged the court to adopt a per se rule that exigent circumstances necessarily exist for a warrantless blood draw whenever an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has been driving under the influence of alcohol..
But the court rejected a blanket rule, instead reading its decision in Schmerber v. California (384 U. S. 757) as supporting the rule that the potential loss of blood alcohol evidence is merely one factor to consider in deciding whether a warrant is necessary.
“In short, while the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support a finding of exigency in a specific case, as it did in Schmerber, it does not do so categorically. Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances,” the court said.
Justice Sonia Sotomajor delivered the opinion of the Court in which Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan joined in full. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a concurrence. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Steven G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent.
Source: http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2013/04/17/scotus-rejects-warrantless-blood-draw-in-dwi-case/
No comments:
Post a Comment