Missouri v. McNeely

src: images.c-span.org

Missouri v. McNeely , 569 US ___ (2013), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Missouri Supreme Court, regarding the exemption for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in emergency situations. The United States Supreme Court ruled that police in general should obtain a warrant before accusing a drunk alcoholic for a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not constitute an urgency per se that would justify the lucky draw blood without consent.

Video Missouri v. McNeely

​​â € <â €

At about 2:08 am on October 3, 2010, Tyler McNeely was stopped after a highway patrolman observed him over the posted speed limit, and crossed the center line. The officer was reported to see signs of poisoning from McNeely, including red-eyed, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely failed a field-of-peace test run by an officer. After refusing to blow a handheld breathalyzer, and declaring that he would refuse a breathalyzer at the police station, the officer drove McNeely directly to the medical center instead of to the station. The officer did not seek a warrant for a blood test, but asked McNeely for his approval. McNeely was warned by officers that by refusing chemical tests, his license would be revoked for one year. McNeely continued to refuse, and at 2:35 pm, the officer began ordering a lab technician to take a blood specimen from McNeely. The blood test results showed a BAC of 0.154 percent, which is above the legal limit of the country of 0.08 percent. McNeely was assigned to drunk driving, and then moved to suppress the results of his blood tests, as he argued that it was unconstitutional as search and seizure made no sense.

Maps Missouri v. McNeely

Procedural history

A court judge ruled in favor of McNeely to suppress the blood test results, stating that giving a blood test without a warrant constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment suspect's protection against unreasonable search and seizures.

State prosecutors later argued that the test administration without a warrant was justified as blood alcohol would be metabolized with time, and a delay in obtaining a warrant would be the destruction of evidence, citing an exceptional state of emergency in the United States Supreme Court 1966 decision Schmerber v. California . At appeal, the country's appeals court declared the intention to withdraw, but transferred the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the court's decision that the officer had violated McNeely's Fourth Amendment right. United States Supreme Court granted written request certiorari on September 25, 2012.

src: images.c-span.org

Court Opinion

5-4 The Supreme Court affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court, agreeing that unintentional blood-taking is a "search" because the term is used in the Fourth Amendment. Thus, a warrant is generally required. In the opinion of the majority, the Court found that because "McNeely case is a routine DWI case" where there is no other factor than a natural blood-alcohol disposal stating that there is an emergency, the court ruled that unreasonable blood harvesting violated McNeely's Fourth The right amendment to free from unreasonable search from the person. However, the Court opens the possibility that an "emergency" exemption for such general terms may apply in some cases of drunk driving.

src: pbs.twimg.com

See also

• Breithaupt v. Abram (1957) The case of the US Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that an unintentional blood sample, taken by an expert technician to determine poisoning, did not violate the substantive process due to the Fourteenth Amendment
• Birchfield vs. North Dakota (2016)

src: images.c-span.org

References

Source of the article : Wikipedia