Facts
- A Missouri patrol officer stopped Tyler G. McNeely around 2:08 a.m. for speeding and repeatedly crossing the centerline.
- The officer observed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol; McNeely admitted drinking and performed poorly on field-sobriety tests.
- McNeely refused a portable breath test and was arrested for driving while intoxicated.
- At a hospital, after being advised of Missouri’s implied-consent law and consequences of refusal, McNeely again refused consent for a blood test.
- Without seeking a warrant, the officer directed a technician to draw McNeely’s blood around 2:35 a.m.
- The blood test indicated a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.154%.
- The trial court suppressed the blood-test result; the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, finding no exigency beyond ordinary alcohol dissipation.
Issues
- Whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream creates a categorical exigency permitting warrantless, nonconsensual blood draws in all drunk-driving cases.
- Whether exigent circumstances for a warrantless blood draw must be evaluated case by case under the totality of the circumstances.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the suppression order.
- The Court held that alcohol dissipation does not create a per se exigency justifying warrantless, nonconsensual blood testing in every drunk-driving case.
- Exigency for a blood draw must be assessed case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.
- On these facts, the State did not show circumstances making it impractical to obtain a warrant before drawing blood.
Legal Principles
- A compelled blood draw is a search involving a physical intrusion into the body and implicates strong privacy interests under the Fourth Amendment.
- Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless a recognized exception applies, including exigent circumstances.
- Exigent circumstances exist only when the needs of law enforcement make a warrantless search objectively reasonable, typically assessed under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.
- The risk of evidence loss from alcohol metabolization is a relevant consideration but, standing alone, does not automatically justify dispensing with a warrant.
- Modern warrant procedures (including remote applications) may reduce delay and must be considered when evaluating whether a warrant was reasonably obtainable.
Conclusion
The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to obtain a warrant before conducting a nonconsensual blood draw in a drunk-driving investigation; the natural dissipation of alcohol is not, by itself, an exigency, and any claim of exigent circumstances must be justified by the specific facts of the encounter.