US Supreme Court to hear case on drink-drive blood tests

EnglishLady · Sep 25, 2012

The US Supreme Court is to consider if police need a warrant before ordering a blood test on a drink-driving suspect.

Justices will hear the case of a Missouri man who was taken to hospital for a blood sample after refusing to provide a breath test.

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of the blood sample at trial, finding that the arresting officer should have sought a warrant.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear Missouri v McNeely in January.

The legal saga began when Tyler McNeely was pulled over on suspicion of speeding on 3 October 2010.

After refusing a breath test, he was taken to a nearby hospital where his blood-alcohol content was measured at 0.154%, almost twice the state's legal limit.

Siding with the defendant, Missouri's Supreme Court ruled that police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood, except in cases where a delay could threaten life or destroy evidence.

Mr McNeely's lawyers said the reason the arresting officer made no effort to obtain a warrant was because he was unaware one was needed, not because he was concerned alcohol would dissipate in the accused's bloodstream.

In its appeal to the US high court, Missouri argued that the decision by its supreme court "requires police officers to stand by and allow the best, most probative evidence to be destroyed during a drunk-driving investigation".

Other US courts have ruled that the lowering of blood alcohol levels over time justifies police ordering a blood test without a warrant.

More than 1.4 million people are arrested each year in the US for drink and drug-driving charges, according to the FBI.

BBC News - US Supreme Court to hear case on drink-drive blood tests

21cExp · Sep 25, 2012

Huh. If they end up having to get a warrant, I wonder how that might affect someone who refuses the breathalyzer and requests instead a blood test.

At a family party once, I was told by a newbie LEO that you can refuse the breath test and ask for a blood test. That people who know they might be over the limit do that in hopes the time spent going to a hospital for the test would allow for a lower reading.

Turtle · Sep 25, 2012

Refusing to take a breath test is already an admission of guilt, so a blood test is, literally, an unwarranted violation of someone's rights. If obtained without a warrant and then used in court, you are requiring someone to testify against themselves, against their will. Quickly obtaining a blood sample isn't really the best, most probative evidence at all, it's merely the easiest, most expeditious way to confirm a suspicion of evidence. To have someone without your consent stick a needle into your body and then extract part of your person is an absolute outrage.

EnglishLady · Sep 25, 2012

Turtle said:
Refusing to take a breath test is already an admission of guilt, so a blood test is, literally, an unwarranted violation of someone's rights. If obtained without a warrant and then used in court, you are requiring someone to testify against themselves, against their will. Quickly obtaining a blood sample isn't really the best, most probative evidence at all, it's merely the easiest, most expeditious way to confirm a suspicion of evidence. To have someone without your consent stick a needle into your body and then extract part of your person is an absolute outrage.

So are you saying that if someone refuses a breath test they should immediately be arrested on a DUI?

layoutshooter · Sep 25, 2012

EnglishLady said:
So are you saying that if someone refuses a breath test they should immediately be arrested on a DUI?

Depends on the state etc.

Here is a link to a lawyer dude in Michigan on the subject

Michigan Breathalyzer Refusal

danthewolf00 · Sep 25, 2012

In Ohio you refuse breath test they NOW slap the cuffs on you and impound the car.

21cExp · Sep 26, 2012

danthewolf00 said:
In Ohio you refuse breath test they NOW slap the cuffs on you and impound the car.

Actually, in Ohio and most states, though LEO's may not always follow it, once you are stopped, the Officer is supposed to let you know that if you refuse to do the breath (chemical) test "then he or she can use any reasonable means to make you take the blood test."

At least according to drivinglaws.org. That one's for Ohio. Here's the one for Michigan.

Who knows how true or not that is. As I said above, I was told by an LEO that if one refused the breath test but requested a blood test instead, they would do it, or are supposed to. Not sure I'd want to take the chance.

I do know I was stopped once years ago, was suspected of drinking, was put through a battery of physical tests (fingertip to nose from arm's length, heel-toe-turn, follow the flashlight, etc) then was asked to "recite the alphabet backwards from Z stopping at P. Do you understand the instructions?"

Yes sir, I said, then did it correctly with only slight hesitation, though went to N.

He said "I said stop at P..." but was impressed enough and said "I can see you've been drinking but if you can do that, I believe you can get this thing off the road soon as you can."

The same cop mentioned earlier told me that what they expect to hear from someone when asked to do that is "I couldn't do that even if I wasn't drinking!" Which, of course, is an admission of drinking, for which they then can take you in or make you park the vehicle, etc.

I'm sure in most places things aren't as lenient now as they were even just five-ten years ago.