I Vant to Take Your Blood – Debate Continues after Missouri vs. McNeely

By now you’ve heard about the decision handed down by the Supreme Court in Missouri vs. McNeely. Just as a recap – the Court ruled that taking a blood or urine sample from a suspected drunk driver is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which prohibits search and seizure without a warrant. Previously, law enforcement officials claimed that because alcohol dissipates from the bloodstream so quickly, it constituted an exigency, an emergency situation in which the laws requiring a search warrant could be dismissed. The Supreme Court’s decision was hailed as a victory by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented McNeely in court. The organization declared, “This decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy.” In a separate blog post, ACLU writer Steve Shapiro stated that the organization has always known that drunk driving laws could be enforced and the roads could be kept safe without violation of the Constitution.

Other legal organizations are hailing the decision, as well. Minnesota DWI Defense Blog says the decision “breathed some much needed life into what many perceived as an ailing and weary Fourth Amendment - an Amendment that, together with the First Amendment, forms the absolute bedrock of a free society.” However, writers for the blog acknowledge that it will cause some major overhauls in the way that DWI cases are handled, especially in Minnesota and other states where refusal to submit to a blood test is a criminal offense. They also bemoan a new policy set out by federal courts. The “good faith exception” states that evidence obtained illegally can still be used in court if the law enforcement official believed it was lawful at the time it was collected – a questionable practice. What is to stop a police officer from forcing a blood test and later claiming in court that he thought he was acting according to the Constitution?

To clarify this concept and the Missouri vs. McNeely decision as a whole, the Minnesota DWI Defense Blog has put out a helpful flow chart, clarifying when a blood or urine test is legal and when it is not. In case you’re wondering how they really feel about the Court’s decision, they’ve entitled it, “A Roadmap to Sanity.”

About the Author:

Michael D. Leader is a criminal lawyer with Fort Lauderdale law firm Leader & Leader P.A. Specializing in all forms of criminal law, Leader and partner George Leader offer years of legal experience coupled with a recognized courtroom ability and commitment to ethics.