Missouri v. McNeely Contents Background Procedural history Opinion of the Court See...
Ex parte JacksonBoyd v. United StatesGouled v. United StatesBurdeau v. McDowellHester v. United StatesUnited States v. LeeOlmstead v. United StatesGoldman v. United StatesOn Lee v. United StatesAbel v. United StatesSilverman v. United StatesLewis v. United StatesHoffa v. United StatesKatz v. United StatesTerry v. OhioUnited States v. WhiteCalifornia Bankers Association v. SchultzUnited States v. MillerSmith v. MarylandWalter v. United StatesUnited States v. KnottsUnited States v. PlaceIllinois v. AndreasUnited States v. JacobsenOliver v. United StatesUnited States v. KaroCalifornia v. CiraoloDow Chemical Co. v. United StatesUnited States v. DunnCalifornia v. GreenwoodFlorida v. RileySkinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'nUnited States v. Verdugo-UrquidezBond v. United StatesKyllo v. United StatesIllinois v. CaballesUnited States v. JonesFlorida v. JardinesKlayman v. ObamaACLU v. ClapperCarpenter v. United StatesCounselman v. HitchcockHale v. HenkelTerry v. OhioUnited States v. MendenhallFlorida v. RoyerUnited States v. JacobsenINS v. DelgadoMichigan v. ChesternutBrower v. County of InyoCalifornia v. Hodari D.Florida v. BostickSoldal v. Cook CountyUnited States v. DraytonBrendlin v. CaliforniaJones v. United StatesRakas v. IllinoisMinnesota v. OlsonMinnesota v. CarterByrd v. United StatesDumbra v. United StatesBrinegar v. United StatesDraper v. United StatesAguilar v. TexasSpinelli v. United StatesHill v. CaliforniaIllinois v. GatesOrnelas v. United StatesWhren v. United StatesMaryland v. PringleFlorida v. HarrisTerry v. OhioSibron v. New YorkAdams v. WilliamsUnited States v. Brignoni-PonceDelaware v. ProuseMichigan v. DeFillippoBrown v. TexasYbarra v. IllinoisUnited States v. CortezUnited States v. PlaceMichigan v. LongUnited States v. HensleyUnited States v. SokolowAlabama v. WhiteMinnesota v. DickersonIllinois v. WardlowFlorida v. J. L.United States v. ArvizuHiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of NevadaArizona v. JohnsonNavarette v. CaliforniaHeien v. North CarolinaSteele v. United StatesJohnson v. United StatesFranks v. DelawareYbarra v. IllinoisMaryland v. GarrisonGroh v. RamirezUnited States v. GrubbsLos Angeles County v. RettelleBoyd v. United StatesHale v. HenkelGouled v. United StatesMarron v. United StatesWarden v. HaydenCoolidge v. New HampshireShadwick v. City of TampaConnally v. GeorgiaZurcher v. Stanford DailyWilson v. ArkansasRichards v. WisconsinUnited States v. RamirezUnited States v. BanksWilson v. LayneWarden v. HaydenUnited States v. ChadwickMichigan v. TylerPayton v. New YorkWelsh v. WisconsinBrigham City v. StuartKentucky v. KingAmos v. United StatesBumper v. North CarolinaSchneckloth v. BustamonteUnited States v. MatlockIllinois v. RodriguezGeorgia v. RandolphFernandez v. CaliforniaCoolidge v. New HampshireArizona v. HicksHorton v. CaliforniaMinnesota v. DickersonCarroll v. United StatesChambers v. MaroneyCardwell v. LewisArkansas v. SandersUnited States v. RossCalifornia v. CarneyFlorida v. JimenoCalifornia v. AcevedoWyoming v. HoughtonFlorida v. WhiteCollins v. VirginiaAgnello v. United StatesHarris v. United StatesTrupiano v. United StatesUnited States v. RabinowitzChimel v. CaliforniaUnited States v. RobinsonUnited States v. ChadwickNew York v. BeltonKnowles v. IowaThornton v. United StatesArizona v. GantRiley v. CaliforniaSchmerber v. CaliforniaCupp v. MurphyMissouri v. McNeelyMaryland v. KingBirchfield v. North DakotaMaryland v. BuieSouth Dakota v. OppermanIllinois v. LafayetteAlmeida-Sanchez v. United StatesUnited States v. OrtizUnited States v. Martinez-FuerteUnited States v. RamseyUnited States v. Montoya De HernandezUnited States v. Flores-MontanoMichigan Department of State Police v. SitzCity of Indianapolis v. EdmondIllinois v. LidsterNew Jersey v. T. L. O.O'Connor v. OrtegaSkinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'nNational Treasury Employees Union v. Von RaabVernonia School District 47J v. ActonChandler v. MillerFerguson v. City of CharlestonBoard of Education v. EarlsSafford Unified School District v. ReddingCity of Ontario v. QuonGriffin v. WisconsinUnited States v. KnightsSamson v. CaliforniaFrank v. MarylandCamara v. Municipal CourtSee v. City of SeattleMarshall v. Barlow's, Inc.Donovan v. DeweyNew York v. BurgerMichigan v. CliffordCity of Los Angeles v. PatelBell v. WolfishHudson v. PalmerFlorence v. Board of Chosen FreeholdersUnited States v. Villamonte-MarquezGerstein v. PughUnited States v. WatsonPayton v. New YorkWelsh v. WisconsinMinnesota v. OlsonCounty of Riverside v. McLaughlinAtwater v. City of Lago VistaDevenpeck v. AlfordVirginia v. MooreDunaway v. New YorkFlorida v. RoyerUnited States v. PlaceUnited States v. SharpeIllinois v. McArthurMichigan v. SummersMuehler v. MenaBailey v. United StatesPennsylvania v. MimmsMaryland v. WilsonRodriguez v. United StatesTennessee v. GarnerGraham v. ConnorScott v. HarrisPlumhoff v. RickardAdams v. New YorkWeeks v. United StatesSilverthorne Lumber Co. v. United StatesAgnello v. United StatesWalder v. United StatesUnited States v. HavensJames v. IllinoisUnited States v. LeonMassachusetts v. SheppardIllinois v. KrullHerring v. United StatesDavis v. United StatesSegura v. United StatesMurray v. United StatesNix v. WilliamsWong Sun v. United StatesUtah v. StrieffHudson v. MichiganKaufman v. United StatesUnited States v. CalandraStone v. PowellINS v. Lopez-MendozaPennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. ScottBivens v. Six Unknown Named AgentsAnderson v. Creighton42 U.S.C. § 1983Monroe v. PapeMalley v. BriggsWolf v. ColoradoRochin v. CaliforniaIrvine v. CaliforniaElkins v. United StatesMapp v. OhioKer v. CaliforniaAguilar v. Texas
2012 in United States case lawUnited States Fourth Amendment case law2012 in MissouriUnited States Supreme Court casesUnited States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts CourtAlcohol law in the United StatesBlood tests
United States Supreme CourtSupreme Court of MissouriFourth Amendment to the United States Constitutionexigent circumstancesFourth Amendmentdestruction of evidencestate appeals courtMissouri Supreme Courtwrit of certiorari
| Missouri v. McNeely | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued January 9, 2013 Decided April 17, 2013 | |
| Full case name | State of Missouri, appellant, v. Tyler Gabriel McNeely, respondent. |
| Citations | 569 U.S. 141 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1552; 185 L. Ed. 2d 696; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3160; 81 U.S.L.W. 4250 |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Prior history | motion to suppress evidence granted, unreported No. 10CG-CR01849-01 (Cir. Ct. Cape Giradeau Cty., Mo., Div. II, Mar. 3, 2011); case referred to higher court, 2011 WL 2455571 (Mo.App. E.D.); motion affirmed, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012); rehearing denied, unreported (Mo. March 6, 2012); certiorari granted, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) |
| Holding | |
| The fact that blood-alcohol levels dissipate after drinking ceases, is not a per se exigency pursuant to Schmerber justifying an officer to order a blood test without obtaining a warrant from a neutral judge. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Kagan (Parts I, II-A, II-B, IV) |
| Plurality | Sotomayor, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan (Parts II-C and III) |
| Concurrence | Kennedy (in part) |
| Concur/dissent | Roberts, joined by Breyer, Alito |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. IV | |
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013),[1] was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances.[2] The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.
Contents
1 Background
2 Procedural history
3 Opinion of the Court
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Background
At approximately 2:08 a.m. on 3 October 2010, Tyler McNeely was stopped after a highway patrol officer observed him exceed the posted speed limit, and cross over the centerline. The officer reportedly noticed signs of intoxication from McNeely, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol on his breath. McNeely failed field-sobriety tests administered by the officer. After refusing to blow into a handheld breathalyzer, and stating that he would refuse a breathalyzer at the police station, the officer drove McNeely directly to a medical center instead of the station. The officer did not seek a warrant to conduct the blood test, but asked McNeely for his consent. McNeely was warned by the officer that by refusing a chemical test, his license would be revoked for one year. McNeely continued to refuse, and at 2:35 a.m., the officer proceeded to instruct the lab technician to draw a specimen of blood from McNeely. The results of the blood test showed a BAC of 0.154 percent, which was above the state's legal limit of 0.08 percent. McNeely was charged with driving while intoxicated, and later moved to suppress the results of his blood test, as he argued that it was done unconstitutionally as an unreasonable search and seizure.
Procedural history
A trial judge ruled in McNeely's favor to suppress the results of the blood test, stating that administering a blood test without a warrant was a violation of the suspect's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
State prosecutors later argued that the administration of the test without a warrant was justified as blood alcohol would be metabolized with time, and a delay in obtaining a warrant would amount to destruction of evidence, citing the exigent circumstances exception in the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision Schmerber v. California. On appeal, the state appeals court stated an intention to reverse, but transferred the case directly to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision that the officer had violated McNeely's Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari on 25 September 2012.[3]
Opinion of the Court
A 5-4 Supreme Court affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court, agreeing that an involuntary blood draw is a "search" as that term is used in the Fourth Amendment.[4] As such, a warrant is generally required. In its majority opinion, the Court found that because McNeely's "case was unquestionably a routine DWI case" in which no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood-alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, the court held that the nonconsensual warrantless blood draw violated McNeely's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person. However, the Court left open the possibility that the "exigent circumstances" exception to that general requirement might apply in some drunk-driving cases.[5]
See also
Breithaupt v. Abram (1957) U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that involuntary blood samples, taken by a skilled technician to determine intoxication, do not violate substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) A warrantless breath test, on the other hand, is constitutional.
References
^ Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013).
^ Caplan, Lincoln (5 December 2014). "Is the Driver Drunk?". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 January 2013..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"""""""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
^ "Missouri v. McNeely". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved 5 December 2014.
^ "Missouri v. McNeely" (PDF). Supreme Court. Retrieved 5 December 2014.
^ Id. (According the syllabus to the opinion, "When officers in drunk-driving investigations can reasonably obtain a warrant before having a blood sample drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so. Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the alcohol's dissipation will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its facts....")
External links
- Text of Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)
