Warrantless DUI Blood Tests Draw Concern from Supreme Court, this article was written by Mark Sherman in the Huffing Post and it left me speechless. This article describes a man named Tyler McNeely who was stopped for erratic driving in a small town located in Missouri. The state trooper then performed several field sobriety test in which McNeely failed, and he proceed to refuse a breathalyzer test to measure his alcohol consumption. After refusing the breathalyzer test the state trooper determined he should have his blood drawn since he clearly had enough evidence for a warrant but the arresting officer failed to obtain one. The officer drove the handcuffed suspect to a hospital where he got his blood drawn from a technician.
Is the 4th amendment being ignored in America now? Last time I checked the Constitution's prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures of person and their home. Not to mention the behavior of police officers feeling that they have the power to exact a person’s blood without a warrant is very scary. Police do not have that right unless the delay of the blood drawn could threaten a life or could possibly affect potential evidence. But the office already had enough evidence to charge McNeely with a DUI, he failed all of the field sobriety tests, slurred his words and was very unsteady on his feet. So the fact the state trooper took went above the law to get this man’s blood is absurd.
Thankfully this month, the Supreme Court agreed stating “that by not getting consent or obtaining a warrant from a judge, the blood test constituted an illegal search.” "...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," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court.
All in all McNeely may have had a fantastic reason to refuse the breathalyzer and the blood draw. McNeely had two drunk driving convictions on his record already and would be facing a felony charge with a prison term of four years with the two previous convictions.
In response to Paige Duecker's article "Warrantless Blood Draws????!!!!!" I want to say that I completely agree with her, the officer had no right to take the suspect to a hospital and have his blood drawn. Even though he is a criminal, he is still a human. I'm not sure if a persons Blood Alcohol Content is something police are required to record when taking them into jail and filling out the report, but if everything is being recorded by their car camera like it should be then there is their proof for him failing the sobriety tests. I think that if a person is unwilling to submit to a breathalyzer test and already failed all of the other tests then that should be good enough reason to arrest them. Also, I think that once a criminal (McaNeely) has been charged with their first DUI offense they should be required to submit to a breathalyzer test by law and if they refuse they automatically be arrested. I went off on a bit of a tangent, but if the laws would adjust to what I just said there would be no need to take suspects into a hospital to involuntarily have their blood drawn.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Paige Duecker’s Warrantless blood drawsI do agree with Paige on the article, but the courts did not specify on when exactly exigency is to be taken. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Missouri vs. McNeely that police officers must obtain a warrant before conducting blood draws on suspected impaired drivers. Justice Sotomayor delivered the Court’s opinion that the natural metabolism of alcohol does not grant a “per se” exigency that allows a blanket exception to the 4th Amendment requirement of obtaining a warrant in DUI cases, but that exigency must be determined on a case by case basis. The 8-1 opinion rejected the position held by the Obama administration and more than 30 states that all argued the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream automatically created an exception to the requirement for a warrant. In 2010, Tyler McNeely was pulled over in Missouri by a police officer who noticed signs of impairment. McNeely refused a breath test twice, so the officer had him transported to a hospital where a blood draw was performed without a warrant or McNeely’s consent. McNeely’s BAC came back at 0.154, and he was charged with DWI. He moved to have the results suppressed arguing that the warrantless blood draw was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights.After the state charged McNeely with driving while intoxicated, McNeely filed a motion to suppress evidence due to a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court sustained this motion. On June 21, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, reversed the trial court, holding that the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment applied so Winder did not need a warrant. Subsequently, in light of the “general interest and importance of the issue,” the Court of Appeals sua sponte transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial’s ruling in a per curiam opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 25, 2012, on the question of whether the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream triggers the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment. I believe the rulling given does not specify any clarity regarding exigent circumstances to be able to proceed in an unwarranted blood draw thus being unconstitutional against the fourth ammendment leaving a loophole that would allow unwarranted blood draws to take place
ReplyDelete