Suspects' initial levels of intoxication and the time necessary to obtain warranted blood draws will vary widely from case to case. If they do not act because they do not have enough evidence to support a warrant, then again it seems that the protections granted by the Fourth Amendment are even more crucial to proper justice. "I think they’re all significant cases," says Steven R. Shapiro, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who will argue on behalf of McNeely in the DWI blood-draw case. This case requires the Court to decide whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits an officer from obtaining a blood sample without a warrant when there is probable cause to believe that a suspect has been driving under the influence of alcohol. One of those exceptions is known as the "exigent circumstances exception," which "applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."
As a result, I would hold that a warrantless blood draw does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. When police, for example, are in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing felon who runs into a house, they face an “exigent circumstance” that excuses the ordinary requirement that they obtain a warrant before entering a private home. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 771-772 (1966) ("Petitioner's blood was taken by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices. At the superior court level, the court denied the petition. McNeely’s BAC tested well above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI).
See Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 5).
Just as the suspect's efforts to destroy "highly evanescent evidence" gave rise to the exigency in Cupp, the natural metabolization of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) creates an exigency once police have probable cause to believe the driver is drunk. 811374, Mar. Moreover, a case-by-case approach is hardly unique within our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
Chief Justice Roberts, in an opinion (concurring in part and dissenting in part), joined by Justices Breyer and Alito, arrives at what I think is a smart and effective solution to the DWI-exigency problem. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sample. (a) The principle that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception, see, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224, applies here, where the search involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely's skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a criminal investigation. A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement's need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home, Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U. S. 45, 47-48 (2009) (per curiam), engage in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing suspect, United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38, 42-43 (1976), or enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause, Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 509-510 (1978). Stripp, Forensic and Clinical Issues in Alcohol Analysis, in Forensic Chemistry Handbook 440 (L. Kobilinsky ed. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.". When that time is cannot be known. The case of Missouri v. McNeely, to be argued Jan. 9, is one of several significant Fourth Amendment tests before the justices this term. §§558.011, 577.023.1(5), 577.023.3 (West 2011). The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. Stat. Ann. 2012); N. J. Rev. Is there an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for forcibly drawing blood from a person suspected of drunk driving?
§55-10-406(a)(4) (2012); Vt. Stat. In this case, for example, approximately 25 minutes elapsed between the time the police stopped McNeely and the time his blood was drawn. McNeely, the United States Supreme Court discussed when a blood draw without a warrant was permissible. A rule that requires officers (and ultimately courts) to balance transportation delays, hospital availability, and access to magistrates is not a workable rule for cases where natural processes inevitably destroy the evidence with every passing minute. §291E-15 (2009 Cum.
358 S. W. 3d, at 70, 74-75.
23, §1202(f) (2007); Wash. Rev. Reviewing courts in turn should assess those judgments " 'from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.'
Post, at 6-7, n. 2. Carson, Compton, El Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Lomita, Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Dominguez, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, San Pedro, Santa Monica, Torrance, Wilmington, and surrounding cities in Los Angeles. The fact that police will be able to retrieve some evidence before it is all destroyed is simply not relevant to the exigency inquiry. They will never know how intoxicated a suspect is at the time of arrest.
Warrants inevitably take some time for police officers or prosecutors to complete and for magistrate judges to review. Proc. "1 384 U. S., at 771. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided the case of Missouri v.McNeely..
But it seems to me that the Chief Justices’s solution is not realistic at all. Next, the State and the United States contend that the privacy interest implicated by blood draws of drunk-driving suspects is relatively minimal.
(NHTSA), Alcohol and Highway Safety: A Review of the State of Knowledge 167 (No. "One well-recognized exception," and the one at issue in this case, "applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." That is particularly so in this context, where BAC evidence is lost gradually and relatively predictably.6. If an officer could reasonably conclude that there is not, the exigent circumstances exception applies by its terms, and the blood may be drawn without a warrant.
The State's proposed per se rule also fails to account for advances in the 47 years since Schmerber was decided that allow for the more expeditious processing of warrant applications, particularly in contexts like drunk-driving investigations where the evidence offered to establish probable cause is simple.
Ibid. §28-1321(D)(1) (West 2012); Ga. Code Ann. Well over a majority of States allow police officers or prosecutors to apply for search warrants remotely through various means, including telephonic or radio communication, electronic communication such as e-mail, and video conferencing.4 And in addition to technology-based developments, jurisdictions have found other ways to streamline the warrant process, such as by using standard-form warrant applications for drunk-driving investigations.5, We by no means claim that telecommunications innovations have, will, or should eliminate all delay from the warrant-application process.
Evidence of a driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is crucial to obtain convictions for such crimes. Correll, a litigator in Alston & Bird’s Dallas office, explored the issue of DWI blood draws in a 2011 article in the West Virginia Law Review, "Is There a Doctor in the (Station) House?" §31-6-102(d) (Lexis 2011). 41(c)(3) (2012); Ga. Code Ann. 384 U. S., at 770. Obviously the courts have allowed exceptions as described in the article. ", "Thanks for investing in my case. See also post, at 3, and n. 1 (opinion of Thomas, J.).
Code Ann. See NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts, 2011 Data 1 (No. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. See Tyler, supra, at 509; see also Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177, 185-186 (1990) ("in order to satisfy the 'reasonableness' requirement of the Fourth Amendment, what is generally demanded of the many factual determinations that must regularly be made by . See, e.g., Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 625 (1989); Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 761-763 (1985). See McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 456. He was then arrested. . Rev. A nonconsensual blood draw to gather evidence was a search under the Fourth Amendment, the court held, and ordinarily a search warrant would be required. Koester says in the state’s brief that obtaining a warrant in the middle of the night in Cape Girardeau County takes about two hours on average, while the body eliminates alcohol at a rate of 0.015 to 0.02 percent per hour. " Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. McNeely, for instance, faces up to four years in prison. At the same time, his opinion accommodates the majority’s concern, and it acknowledges that seeking a warrant in these circumstances does not always occasion a delay in the search. He was subsequently charged with a DWI. 2012); La. §31-6-102(d) (2011); see generally 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §4.3(b), pp. Rather, to rely on “exigent circumstances,” police must demonstrate a genuine emergency that they confront in the individual case, regardless of whether such cases “in general” create an exigency. §§780.651(2)-(6) (West 2006); Minn. Rules Crim.
As to Part III, much that is noted with respect to the statistical and survey data will be of relevance when this issue is explored in later cases. Chief Justice Roberts is realistic about the uncertainties in a DWI arrest situation. In this respect, obtaining a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver differs from other exigent circumstances cases. §§5-65-205(a)(1), 5-65-208(a)(1) (Supp.