FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

The Law Officer's Pocket Manual - Bloomberg BNA
This handy 4" x 6" spiral-bound manual offers examples showing how rules are...

Top News

Supreme Court Requires Warrant for DUI Blood Tests

April 17, 2013  | 

Photo via Lori Greig/Flickr.
Photo via Lori Greig/Flickr.

The United States Supreme Court required officers to obtain a warrant before drawing blood from a suspected drunk driver in a decision announced Wednesday.

The court ruled 5-4 in Missouri v. McNeely that a warantless blood draw would violate the Fourth Amendment unless the officer needed to prevent destruction or loss of evidence.

The court released four opinions on the case, including one from Justice Sonia Sotomayor in which she wrote that "Our ruling will not severely hamper law enforcement."

Comments (8)

Displaying 1 - 8 of 8

Cam @ 4/18/2013 2:31 AM

I happen to be a disabled, retired police officer who does not believe what I just read. Just exactly how does Sotomayor know what will and will not 'hamper law enforcement'. After being forced to retire, I have tried to follow DUI's, and changes made to the laws already on the books. I was t-boned in my patrol car in 2003. Since 2003, I have seen even more tolerance by the public for these victimless crimes. Law enforcement have to beg lawmakers in my state just for a primary seat belt law. Regardless here in my state, whether it is your 5th felony DUI, or your 35th felony, the penalties are the same. Alcohol is a LEGAL drug, and look what happens to accidents involving alcohol. Now states are adding marijuana as another legal drug. Prescription meds for; sleep, pain, nerve pain, or anything else does not say 'do not drive while taking this medicine' on the label. It only says not to drive or operate heavy machinery or drive until you know how this medication affects you. In this day and age, there should be no such thing as any tolerance for the so-called 'disease' of those who drink and drive. If we cannot get the Supreme Court to understand this...well I have no idea except they need to go on some ride alongs with LEO's that they are 'not hampering' us to do our jobs. Have night court, watch an autopsy, tell a family member they just lost someone they loved to a DUI driver. There are answers out there, but who has the personal agenda of DUI's, otherwise it will go unchanged again, and again. The Supreme Court is making a mockery of itself, as any LEO can tell you when a person has had a prior DUI. The suspected driver, who allegedly hit some one, know the drill. NO COOPERATION with field sobriety tests (fst's) or blowing in a breathalyzer, will not happen if they know the system. Talk about tying the hands of law enforcement, again.

Mark @ 4/18/2013 7:42 PM

This is a bad article. This is NOT what the court ruled. See

Ima Leprechaun @ 4/18/2013 10:05 PM

I wonder how that will work with the implied consent rule.

DaveSAM5525G @ 4/19/2013 2:51 AM

My theory only - as the water has yet to be tested and tried and I could be off...The ruling was over whether law enforcement can withdraw blood from someone suspected of a DUI without their consent and without a search warrant. The court decided that violated a person's Fourth Amendment rights. In many states, law enforcement agencies that draw blood without consent could, up until Wednesday's ruling, draw it under two different laws - implied consent and exigent circumstances. “I think they are going to need a look at developing some procedures, which we work with agencies and judges and our prosecutors to see if we can expedite the process of getting a warrant.” But there's something else at play in many states that are an implied consent state, meaning if you drive on the highways of the state, you have given consent to submit to either breath, blood or urine tests when suspected of DUI. So, county prosecutors and law enforcement agencies have to figure out which way to lean on this now! The Supreme Court's ruling mainly deals with a more routine type DUIs. In the case of aggravated DUI with injuries and vehicular manslaughter, officers can perform a blood draw without a warrant or permission?

judy @ 2/27/2017 7:12 AM

first I would like to make it clear that I'm against drinking and driving and do believe that it is extremely dangerous, even after one drink. I had an incident on a evening that I was going to meet someone and thought they needed help. I suggested we take a bus service that they offer to pick you up and take you so no driving would be involved. She agreed. as I was getting ready I received a call from her. She said she was already a country club across the street from her house. I was taken back and a bit surprised. I made it clear to her that I don't drink and drive. She informed me her daughter & boyfriend where coming. Also that I could stay over her house. she said it'll work out. I reluctantly agreed. my gut feeling felt uneasy she does have a drinking problem and it was suppose to just her and I she was her boyfriend. I had 3 wines stayed all night waited for her she turned me down to sleep over. I didn't have my phone she left, drove home, got stopped.

judy @ 2/27/2017 7:33 AM

I wasn't stopped until i reached my area which is a very small area in a county know from high stake outs for DUI'S. i stopped drinking at 12 and was had h2o. he pulled me over 1 minute from my house asked for my license, & walked away, never asked me any questions about drinking, that was odd. because 5 year prior i was stopped in the same area. i knew once he saw my license record i was done. so he approach then w/a breathalyzer and had me do the test. i was very coherent. it was raining hard out. he asked to do sobriety test i refused because i told him i would fail due numerous back surgery's & have rods in my spine, bilateral knee replacement's. he made take the test. i was having a coherent conversation with him also.he searched my pocket book. took blood.i was brought home and released. he kept apologizing to me. he waited 2 weeks before filing charges. I'm very upset with myself of course and disappointed. the blood was inadmissible, and his reporpt was inadmissible also.

judy @ 2/27/2017 7:46 AM

i went to counseling first thing for 12 sessions, because this happened 2x's. I'm 60 and never been in trouble before. iwas told that i don't have the characteristics or show signs of being an alcoholic. I'm more of a co-depend person trying to save people and get caught up, so that was an eye opener for me. i lost my license for a year, and will have to do the interlock system for a year. Personally i got the felling that my Layer felt that i should be punished, it turned out threat it was the officer's word against mine. i have not drank since that night and no longer associate with that group. I on disability and cant work.
the bus stop is too far to walk too. and due to my disability i can't walk that ffar. i tried uber to go to my doctors, it cost me 60.00 or more round trip. I'm limited income and can't afford to take it any longer. I'm responsible is there any thing i can do.. it's going on 4 months with no license and a year since the incident.

judy @ 2/27/2017 7:54 AM

I don't know what to say since i don't work to ask for a OLL license.
i don't understand with the interlock system in place why they just don't allow people to use it immediately. if you haven't caused any damage or harmed any one. I truly believe because it was 230 am and i was the only car on the road is why he stopped me. the crn evaluator even had mentioned that to me as so did others but i was wrong.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.
Police Magazine