Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trial

Related Cases

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 44 O.O.2d 383
View Case »
Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 77 L.Ed.2d 405
View Case »
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769, 72 USLW 4103, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,763, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,581, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 83
View Case »
Robinson v. Arizona, 498 U.S. 1110, 111 S.Ct. 1025 (Mem), 112 L.Ed.2d 1107, 59 USLW 3564
View Case »
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 175 L.Ed.2d 1045, 78 USLW 4159, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2218, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2731, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 135
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696, 81 USLW 4250, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3752, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4918, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 150

Facts

Tyler McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing the centerline. After showing signs of intoxication and refusing a breath test, he was arrested and taken to a hospital for a blood test without a warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sample, which revealed a BAC above the legal limit. McNeely moved to suppress the blood test results, arguing that the warrantless blood draw violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The officer never attempted to secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sample.

Issue

Does the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream present a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases?

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.

Rule

The exigency in the context of warrantless blood tests must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances, rather than applying a blanket rule based on the natural dissipation of alcohol.

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, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427, 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.

Analysis

The court applied the totality of the circumstances approach, emphasizing that while the natural dissipation of alcohol may support a finding of exigency in specific cases, it does not justify a categorical exception to the warrant requirement. The court noted that the state failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances in McNeely's case, as there were no additional factors indicating an emergency beyond the natural metabolization of alcohol.

Applying this approach in Schmerber, the Court found a warrantless blood test reasonable after considering all of the facts and circumstances of that case and carefully basing its holding on those specific facts, including that alcohol levels decline after drinking stops and that testing was delayed while officers transported the injured suspect to the hospital and investigated the accident scene.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, concluding that the warrantless blood test violated McNeely's Fourth Amendment rights.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

Tyler McNeely prevailed in the case because the court found that the warrantless blood test was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Tyler McNeely prevailed because the trial court agreed, concluding that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that McNeely's blood alcohol was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an emergency.

You must be