The Supreme Court Rules Against Police Officer Taking Blood Sample Without Warrant from Alleged Drunk Driver

Washington, D.C.

A man charged with drunk driving successfully won his case at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, with the justices concluding police should have first obtained a warrant before conducting a blood test against his will, shortly after arrest.

The issue before the court involved the balancing test between timely gathering of accurate evidence and privacy interests.

In this case, the high court struck down Missouri's guidelines giving police broad discretion to forego getting a judge's prior approval before executing a search.

"We hold that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Law enforcement wants flexibility to conduct such "searches"-- saying alcohol dissipates over time and that delays getting a magistrate to sign off on a blood sample can mean justice denied.

However, according to civil rights advocates, these kinds of "invasive" medical procedures are unnecessary and unconstitutional, absent any extraordinary circumstances negating the warrant requirement.

The case involves Tyler McNeely, 25, who was stopped in the middle of the night two years ago near Cape Girardeau, Missouri, for speeding. He failed four field sobriety tests administered by highway patrolman Mark Winder.

McNeely then refused a portable Breathalyzer test on the scene, and was placed under arrest. The corporal then transported the suspect to a local hospital when McNeely said he would not consent to a breath test at jail.

Ignoring the man’s objections, the officer ordered a blood test.

The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their person ... against unreasonable searches and seizure," and that "no warrants shall issue, except under probable cause."

The high court's guiding standard has long been "reasonableness" and the justices here again said the warrant requirement can be suspended under exigent circumstances, such as the risk of endangering lives or destruction of evidence.

But the court has also said state intrusions into one's own body generally require prior review and approval by a judge.

The decision will likely mean police may be required to adopt more extensive guidelines on its testing policies, narrowing the emergency exceptions to the warrant requirement.