Missouri v. McNeely
569 U.S. _____ (2013)
Decided: April 17, 2013
Issue:
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.
Holding:
No, Fourth Amendment principles require exigency in the context of
alcohol dissipation from the bloodstream should be determined case by case
based on the totality of the circumstances.
Summary:
Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d. 529, 494 N.W.
2d 399 (1993), law enforcement officers have been allowed to take warrantless blood
draws when: (1) the blood draw is taken to obtain evidence of intoxication from
a person lawfully arrested for a drunk-driving related violation or crime,
(2) there is a clear indication ... the blood draw will produce evidence
of intoxication, (3) the method used to take the blood sample is a reasonable
one and performed in a reasonable manner, and (4) the arrestee presents no
reasonable objection to the blood draw.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision
in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) to support the use of
warrantless blood draws based on the known dissipation of alcohol from the
bloodstream. Law enforcement officers
and prosecutors in Wisconsin got used to having this legal tool for gathering
evidence.
The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part,
that
"[t]he right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable case.”
A warrantless search of a person is reasonable if it falls within a recognized exception. One of the recognized exceptions is “when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable. In addition, the Court pointed to the 47 years since Schmerber was decided that allow for more expeditious processing of warrant applications where the evidence offered to establish probable cause is simple. For example, the majority of states allow officers and prosecutors to apply for search warrants remotely through various means, including, communication by telephone or radio, electronic communication and video conferencing. However, the Court allowed that there will be those cases where a law enforcement officer faces an emergency that justified acting without a warrant under the totality of the circumstance. The new rule is grounded in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The best way to proceed is with caution, evaluating each case of alleged exigency based on its own facts and circumstances.
Decision: High Court rejects automatic forced OWI blood draws without warrant
The US Supreme Court rejects the per se rule that
there is, in all cases, an automatic exigent circumstance to justify a
warrantless seizure of blood in OWI cases. The court held that the police
should either have a warrant or be prepared to explain, for that particular
case, why getting a warrant is unfeasible. Consequently, automatic warrantless
forced blood draws in OWI contexts are now problematic. (This case does not
affect Wisconsin's implied consent laws, but does affect warrantless blood
draws in the event of a refusal.)
The opinion is detailed with many tangents, and therefore must be analyzed
before it can be fully commented on. Therefore, we will provide additional
guidance and direction in the near future, but felt it important to give you a
heads-up on this issue. Naturally, your District Attorneys will be involved in
this process as well.
The US Supreme Court rejects the per se rule that
there is, in all cases, an automatic exigent circumstance to justify a
warrantless seizure of blood in OWI cases. The court held that the police
should either have a warrant or be prepared to explain, for that particular
case, why getting a warrant is unfeasible. Consequently, automatic warrantless
forced blood draws in OWI contexts are now problematic. (This case does not
affect Wisconsin's implied consent laws, but does affect warrantless blood
draws in the event of a refusal.)
The opinion is detailed with many tangents, and therefore must be analyzed
before it can be fully commented on. Therefore, we will provide additional
guidance and direction in the near future, but felt it important to give you a
heads-up on this issue. Naturally, your District Attorneys will be involved in
this process as well.
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
129 S.Ct. 1257
Decided: June 23, 2011
Issue: Confrontation Clause
Holding: The United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to confront the forensic analyst who tested the defendant’s blood sample to determine the sample’s blood-alcohol concentration (BAC).
Summary
