California DUI's & The New McNeely Craze
The United Supreme Court has recently handed down a decision that has had a direct impact on the way DUI cases are litigated. In Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) , the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless blood draw from a DUI suspect may violate the driver's fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Tyler G. McNeely was arrested for suspected drunk driving October 3, 2010. The arresting officer asked McNeely to submit to a breath test, which McNeely to submit to a brreath test, which McNeely refused. The officer then transported McNeely to a hospital and instructed medical staff to draw a blood sample without McNeely's consent and without a warrant. During trial, McNeely's attorney moved to suppress the blood evidence, arguing that the blood sample was obtian in violation of McNeely's fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizures.
The State argued that the blood sample fell under the exigent circumstances exception, claiming that the evidence-the alcohol in McNeely's bloodstream-would be destroyed, or metabolized, during the time it would take to obtain a sear warrant. The State also argued that drunk driving enforcement constitutes a compelling government interest.
The Supreme Court emphazied of the Fourth Amendment, stating that "the importance of requiring authorization by a 'neutral and detached magistrate' before allowing a law enforcement officer to invade another's body in search of evidence of guilt is indisputable and great.' Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14-14 (1948).
However, they also made it clear that the exceptions to the 4th Amendment are prevalent and necessary. The Court also acknowledge that warrantless searches may be reasonable when 'there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.'" Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509.
The Court recognized that there could not be a strict rule that could be applied to every instance, The Court reaffirmed that exigent circumstances mus be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, stating: "To determine whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant, this Court looks the totality of circumstances." Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 406 (2006).
In fact there was a case in which the Court found that there was no warrant necessary to take a Defendant's blood. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, the warrantless blood test was deemed permissible as the "officer 'might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened the destruction of evidence.'" Quoting, Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964). This does not mean that "mere dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence" is enough to support a warrantless blood draw. Missouri v. McNeely, 358 S. W. 3d 65, at 70; rather "extingency depends heavily on the existence of addition 'special facts,' such as whether the officer was delayed the need to investigate an accident and transport an injured suspect to the hospital." Id., at 70.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that while the natural disspation of alcohol in the blood may supprt a finding of exigency in a specific case, it does not do so categorically. Whether a warrantless blood test is reasonable must be determined on a case-by-case basis on the totalitu of the circumstances McNeely v. Missouri, 569 U.S. __(2013).
2025 Update: The McNeely decision continues to play a critical role in California DUI defense cases involving blood draws. Courts still require law enforcement to justify warrantless blood tests based on specific facts, and failure to obtain a warrant may result in suppression of evidence depending on the circumstances of the stop and arrest.