The U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Blood Tests for Drunk Driving Suspects Require a Search Warrant: A Wise Decision?

Posted in: Criminal Procedure

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided the case of Missouri v. McNeely.  In McNeely, a majority of the Court rejected the idea of a “per se” exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement for blood tests in drunk-driving cases.  That is, the Court held that police may not automatically order a blood test on someone whom they have lawfully arrested for DWI (driving while intoxicated) but must instead seek a warrant, absent a reason to skip the warrant—a reason that goes beyond the simple fact that blood-alcohol-concentration diminishes with the passage of time.

The Court held that police must conduct a “totality of the circumstances” exigency analysis to determine whether seeking a warrant prior to performing a blood test would “significantly undermin[e] the efficacy of the search” in an individual case.  In this column, I will consider whether the Court’s ruling makes sense, in light of what generally happens in DWI cases. I will also discuss an alternative approach proposed by the Chief Justice.

Why Get a Warrant?

To determine whether the Court was right to apply the warrant requirement to BAC (blood-alcohol concentration) testing, it may be helpful first to consider the source and purpose of the warrant requirement.  The Fourth Amendment’s text provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”  The text does not itself require a warrant, but it does go on to say that warrants may issue only in the presence of probable cause, among other things.  Notwithstanding the lack of a textual warrant requirement anywhere in the Constitution (and the similar lack of a textual requirement for probable cause as a prerequisite to a search), the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “unreasonable searches” to require—in the garden-variety case—that police have probable cause, and that they obtain a warrant prior to performing a search.

The rationale for requiring a warrant is that it permits a neutral and detached person, one who is not engaged in the “often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,” as the Court has put it, to take a sober second look at the evidence that has aroused a police officer’s suspicion.  The magistrate who reviews the warrant application can then determine, without possessing the zeal of someone who spends most of her time tracking down criminals, whether there really is probable cause, as the officer believes there is.  Though the word “seizures” appears in the same phrase in the Fourth Amendment as the word “searches,” the Court has been more generous in permitting police to skip the warrant in the case of seizures than it has in the case of searches.

The Typical Drunk-Driving Arrest Scenario, and the Facts in McNeely

This background all becomes relevant to the Court’s ruling when we turn to the drunk-driving arrest scenario.  Typically, such an arrest occurs when police observe a pattern of driving that suggests intoxication, including weaving or other demonstrated incompetence at the wheel.  Based on their observations of such driving, which amount to “reasonable suspicion” of DWI, police may pull over or temporarily “stop” the drunk-driving suspect for further investigation.

At this stage, police may ask the suspect questions, look into the suspect’s eyes (for tell-tale signs of intoxication), sniff at the air near the suspect (for the stink of alcohol), and perhaps ask the suspect to walk a straight line or otherwise display the sort of coordination that most sober people exhibit.  The officer may also ask the suspect to take a breathalyzer test.  If the suspect’s behavior, appearance, fragrance, and/or breathalyzer results (or the refusal to take a breathalyzer test) give rise to probable cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated, then the officer may arrest him for DWI.  An arrest is a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes, but under a case called United States v. Watson, it does not require a warrant when it occurs in public.  Police were therefore able to arrest Tyler G. McNeely for DWI, based on probable cause, without first seeking a magistrate’s neutral review.

Once they arrested Mr. McNeely, police brought him to a nearby hospital and asked a lab technician to take a blood sample for a BAC test, over McNeely’s protests.  The test results showed McNeely to be at .154 percent, well over the legal limit, and he was subsequently charged with DWI.  In the trial court, McNeely moved to suppress the BAC test results, arguing that police performed an unreasonable search on him by testing his blood without a search warrant and without his consent.  The trial court agreed and suppressed the evidence, and the State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The Exigent Circumstances Exception

Though the Court ordinarily requires police to obtain a warrant before performing a search, it recognizes exceptions to the warrant requirement for a variety of situations that can confront the police.  One important exception exists for “exigent circumstances,” which are emergency situations that demand immediate action.  When police, for example, are in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing felon who runs into a house, they face an “exigent circumstance” that excuses the ordinary requirement that they obtain a warrant before entering a private home.

One of the exigencies that the Court has recognized as pertinent to whether police may proceed with a search in the absence of a warrant is the risk that evidence could be destroyed in the time it takes to procure a search warrant.  Because of this risk, if police have probable cause to believe that a suspect who is located inside his home (and who knows that police are right outside the door) is in possession of drugs, police may be able to enter immediately, without a warrant.  That is because waiting for a magistrate’s approval would give the suspect the opportunity (and motive) to destroy the evidence in his possession.  The State of Missouri, in McNeely, argued that whenever police have a drunk-driving suspect in custody, they face an exigent circumstance of this sort: With every passing minute of blood-test delay, the suspect’s blood-alcohol-concentration—the best evidence of DWI—diminishes.

The Supreme Court rejected the State’s argument for an across-the-board exigency exception for blood tests in drunk driving cases, ruling that while the passage of time does reduce the BAC of the suspect, it does not necessarily and always present an emergency.  Given that police can obtain warrants electronically and otherwise, in a relatively rapid manner, the Court noted, getting a warrant is often a practical option, even in a DWI situation.  Since a warrant is usually required in the absence of an exigency in a particular case, the Court held in McNeely that the same approach should apply to drunk-driving arrests:  if police can show a particular exigent circumstance (beyond the always-present ongoing metabolization of alcohol by a suspect), judged by the “totality of the circumstances,” then they may test his blood without a warrant.  Otherwise, a warrant will be required.

The Problem With the Majority’s Approach

There is a part of me that finds the majority’s approach understandable and even reassuring.  In a time in which the Court seems to be regularly announcing inroads on existing constitutional protections, the McNeely decision holds the line and says that we will not have an across-the-board exception to the warrant requirement for a particular class of criminal evidence:  BAC of drunk drivers.  Rather, to rely on “exigent circumstances,” police must demonstrate a genuine emergency that they confront in the individual case, regardless of whether such cases “in general” create an exigency.  As a result of this decision, moreover, it seems that people who could otherwise be wrongfully subjected to unjustified blood tests might be spared, because a magistrate can reject the officers’ potentially overzealous perceived need to collect evidence.

The reason, however, that I am ultimately unconvinced by the majority’s analysis turns on the nature of DWI evidence.  As mentioned earlier, the best evidence of DWI is the result of a blood-alcohol test taken as close to the time of driving as possible.  As everyone acknowledges, a person’s blood-alcohol-concentration steadily diminishes over time as soon as the person stops drinking.  Therefore, in every case in which a suspect is actually guilty of DWI, evidence of guilt is literally vanishing with whatever time it might take for an officer to seek and obtain a search warrant.

The vanishing of evidence may not matter, in some cases, because the suspect’s BAC is so high that it will continue to exceed the legal limit even after whatever delay is occasioned by seeking a warrant.  But a police officer arresting a suspect for DWI is not in a very good position to assess whether that is true in a particular case.  And unlike the usual exigency context in which a suspect, alerted to the arrival of police, might destroy evidence of drug possession (because he has the opportunity and motive to do so before a warrant issues), the drunk driver has no choice but to destroy evidence, because his liver detoxifies his blood automatically, without any voluntary input from him.

Justice Thomas’s Dissent

Furthermore, as Justice Thomas notes in his dissent, even if the suspect remains drunk enough for a conviction at the time of the warrant-authorized BAC test, most states have heightened penalties for the driver whose blood alcohol level is .15% or above, which is nearly double the legal limit of .08%.  A short delay in a blood test could therefore mean the difference between proving a BAC of over .08% and proving one of over .15%, a high BAC that would permit more serious punishment.  There is, of course, no way for a police officer arresting a DWI suspect to know whether or not the suspect’s current BAC is on the verge of dropping below .15%.

Justice Thomas offers a useful and witty hypothetical example to illustrate the exigency that police face in DWI cases.  Imagine that police see an individual worker carrying bundles out of a warehouse and throwing each bundle into a large bonfire.  Assume that the police have probable cause to believe that the bundles contain marijuana but that there is only one worker, so police expect it to take hours for all of the bundles to be destroyed.  Justice Thomas observes that police would be able to search the warehouse without a warrant, based on the exigency posed by the imminent destruction of evidence.

In Justice Thomas’s scenario, it would be absurd to suggest that police must seek a warrant because the delay involved in seeking a warrant might still leave some of the bundles intact, since the worker burning the bundles is operating by himself.  For similar reasons, Justice Thomas contends, the fact that some level of alcohol might remain in the suspect’s blood even after a warrant-seeking delay, does not alter the fact that the suspect’s diminishing blood-alcohol-concentration creates an exigency justifying an immediate blood test.  Officers need not countenance the destruction of evidence just because there might still be other undestroyed evidence left behind.

Chief Justice Roberts’s Elegant Compromise

Chief Justice Roberts, in an opinion (concurring in part and dissenting in part), joined by Justices Breyer and Alito, arrives at what I think is a smart and effective solution to the DWI-exigency problem.  The Chief Justice points out that ordinarily, an exigent circumstance offers the police an immediate opportunity for a search.  For example, a police officer with probable cause for a search might be standing at a suspect’s front door, knowing that the suspect is aware of the officer’s presence and that the suspect has motive and opportunity to destroy the drugs in his possession.  Only by entering the house immediately can the officers prevent the destruction of evidence.

In the case of a drunk driver, by contrast, officers typically cannot perform an immediate search, even though the BAC level is diminishing.  Instead, police ordinarily must call upon medical personnel, present at a hospital, to draw the blood (rather than drawing it themselves at the scene).

This distinction between ordinary searches and blood tests is relevant in McNeely, because seeking a warrant, in the latter case, does not necessarily delay the blood test.  In some cases, a ride with the suspect to the nearest hospital will take the same amount of time (or more time) than the simultaneous acquisition of a warrant (by telephone or through other available electronic means).  In such cases, police can obtain a warrant and also order blood collection as soon as someone qualified is available to draw the blood.  And when they can do so, the Chief Justice says, they should do so.  After all, review by a detached and neutral magistrate is presumptively required by the Fourth Amendment case law.

Chief Justice Roberts is realistic about the uncertainties in a DWI arrest situation.  Police may believe that getting a warrant will take longer than a trip to the hospital for a blood draw.  If their belief is reasonable, says the Chief Justice, then they do not need to seek a warrant at all.  Furthermore, if they do make an attempt to get a warrant, but the magistrate has not yet reviewed the warrant application by the time a medical technician is available to draw blood, the officers can go ahead and order the BAC test, rather than waiting for the magistrate’s decision and thereby delaying the test:  “If an officer could reasonably conclude that there is not sufficient time to seek and receive a warrant, or he applies for one but does not receive a response before blood can be drawn, a warrantless blood draw may ensue.”

The Chief Justice’s solution would work well, because it properly recognizes that any delay in the blood test will result in the loss of evidence.  At the same time, his opinion accommodates the majority’s concern, and it acknowledges that seeking a warrant in these circumstances does not always occasion a delay in the search.  In addition to addressing the problem effectively, this approach also gives police guidance about what to do when they arrest a drunk driver.  By contrast, the majority’s approach offers officers virtually no guidance at all, but states only that “[i]n those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so” (emphasis added).  Such a vague directive, perhaps ironically, may significantly undermine the efficacy of the majority’s opinion.

Posted in: Criminal Procedure

14 responses to “The U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Blood Tests for Drunk Driving Suspects Require a Search Warrant: A Wise Decision?

  1. Your analysis misses 2 points. As the majority pointed out, it is relatively quick & easy to get a warrant by phone & other electronic means. The court cited dozens of states’ criminal procedure rules permitting same. Secondly, the overwhelming DUI convictions arise from breathylizer tests where clearly no warrant is needed. A blood draw requires a technician to insure that it is properly & safely done. It takes time to arrange that blood draw or to transport the defendant to a facility for that purpose. Meanwhile, the officer can make his telephonic application.

    • Jimmy Ray, Jr. says:

      No warrant is needed for the breathylizer if the driver gives permission. I instruct all of my clients to refrain from self-incrimination.

  2. midway54 says:

    I have trouble squaring this with the case of police taking hair samples or fingerprint samples with no requirement that a search warrant be first obtained, since these items, not being testimony, do not equate to self-incrimination (unless I have missed something changing this somewhere such as these are now speech a la money is speech in the well known political context).

  3. Emily Foster says:

    Did this case say anything about the constitutionality of mandatory blood draws after a certain number of prior DWI convictions?

  4. Bryan says:

    I can’t say that I agree that either Justice Thomas or Justice Roberts, as both steer towards a “if the law enforcement can follow the law, then they ought to” line of thinking.

    I have always read the Fourth Amendment as protecting citizens from intrusion absent substantial evidence reviewed by an impartial party, often in exactly the types of situations described by Thomas and Roberts. Obviously the courts have allowed exceptions as described in the article.

    To illustrate the flaw in Justice Thomas’ example, there are two possible scenarios: either the police are aware of the operations at the warehouse prior to witnessing the destruction of the bundles, or they are not.

    If they are not, then it seems clear that observing the Fourth Amendment and the protections therein are even more critical. There is no other evidence of a crime other than burning suspicious bundles, which may or may not contain illicit substances. This would seem to be a straight forward example for the need of the warrant requirements as it is easy to imagine an overzealous officer mistaking burning items for illicit drugs. Allowing officers to skip the requirements in this scenario would be to defeat the amendment almost at its root.

    If the police are aware of the activities in Thomas’ example, then why should they be exempt from obtaining the necessary warrant just because they failed to act prior to the alleged destruction of evidence? If law enforcement officers choose to delay action in an attempt to build a stronger case, losing existing evidence must be a recognized potential outcome. In this instance, a warrant could likely still be obtained and some evidence preserved. The loss of evidence is a gambit made, and lost, by the officers. The decision of law enforcement to delay a warrant should not exempt them from Fourth Amendment requirements.

    If they do not act because they do not have enough evidence to support a warrant, then again it seems that the protections granted by the Fourth Amendment are even more crucial to proper justice. Otherwise, under Thomas’ reasoning the officers observing the warehouse could wait until it appears that the suspect is destroying evidence in order to skip the Fourth Amendment requirements entirely on what could be a flimsy case.

    While I understand the concern about diminishing evidence in DWI matters, the “if officers can, then they should” mentality cannot apply to the Fourth Amendment for the protections contained for them to continue to have any weight. Avoidance of the probable cause and warrant requirements cannot be accepted, except in the most strict and highly scrutinized of circumstances.

  5. Matt McLaughlin says:

    So warrant is in need for suspected weed-DUIs too, right?

  6. James Owen says:

    Is it fair to say the BAC diminishes as soon as you stop drinking. Isn’t it more accurate to say that BAC would change +/- depending on when the last drink was taken and how much of the alcohol reached the bloodstream. Isn’t it possible that BAC would be higher at time of test than at time of operating a motor vehicle and then would diminish after some peak level?

    • Slugo says:

      You are absolutely correct, but for the over zealous govt to bolster their argument for warrantless invasions of privacy and to circumvent the rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution they seem to conveniently leave out the fact the BAC can as easily increase as it can decrease depending on the time of the last consumption of alcohol.

      After all, in order to have any positive BAC it has to increase from zero to the peak before it can decrease. When that time is cannot be known

      Every argument by the prosecution and apparantly by the courts appears to only assume the BAC decreases after being stopped by the police when in fact the evidence could be building against the suspect to a point he may have been within the legal limit at the time he was stopped and only found to be over the limit due to the rate of increase that always happens after consuming alcohol.

      • Travis says:

        And to your point, the suspect may have been home and in bed before the BAC hits its peak, vs sitting in an ER getting blood drawn.

  7. Jack Rauber says:

    This practice is wrong. Period. We are not living in a fascist state, unless we continue to allow such ludicrous laws to be passed and enforced by people who are clearly incapable of rational action. Listen to Officer Sims explain the rationale for the actions, including the twisting of the person’s neck each and every time because they may get out of hand. This guy is nuts, just like many who administer these bizarre BAC tests. Flat out nuts.

  8. travis gibbs says:

    only thing i see now is theft is ok what are we teaching our kids. thou shall steal!

  9. Dave Ten says:

    I’m no lawyer. I’m just a simple man from Texas. But it seems to me that the Chief Justices’s solution is not realistic at all. His solution does not propose a solution for exigent circumstances. To say that police should attempt to get a warrant and to go ahead with the action of taking blood whether they get one or not is nothing more than giving permission to do what they want as long as the pretend they care about the fourth amendment. It also makes it simple for the 3rd party to simply do nothing and have no accountability. His solution only raises questions as to the mentalities of the court justices and to whom or what they serve. This approach would be disastrous to the fourth amendment not in just DWI cases but anywhere else police and judges played the hear no evil, see no evil game that would undoubtedly be played under those rules.

  10. John Coghlan says:

    this should never have been allowable under any circumstance, it is exactly the same as forcing a defendant to testify against himself, breath tests are barely allowable as we all have to breath out in order to continue living and that expulsion becomes fair game….forcing someone to have a needle placed into their body and remove their body fluids is absolutely absurd and completely unnecessary under any circumstance.