Supreme Court Backs Warrants For Blood Tests In DUI Cases

[Chris_]

Supreme Court Backs Warrants For Blood Tests In DUI Cases

Tyler McNeely was pulled over late at night after a state trooper observed him driving erratically. When McNeely refused to take a Breathalyzer test, the officer drove him to a local hospital and ordered blood drawn for an alcohol test. The officer did not seek a warrant, even though he had done so in previous cases. The state of Missouri contended that because alcohol naturally dissipates in the bloodstream, each passing moment means valuable evidence is being lost, and so a warrant is never required for a blood draw.

The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that in most circumstances there is adequate time to get a warrant. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said that in the modern world of technology, police can often obtain a warrant quickly by using their cellphones or by email, and that in most jurisdictions a magistrate is available at all hours to grant a warrant request.

NPR

[thundley4]

Illinois has at times set up "roadside safety checkpoints" for drunk drivers and have occasionally taken blood samples when breathalyzers were refused.  However, they did it with warrants.

[ExGeeEye]

Good.  If a warrant is needed to look in your trunk (and if you stop me, it is) then it's certainly needed to look in your blood.

(This will affect me not a bit.  I've never been in danger of a DUI charge.  Even when I was drinking I knew enough not to drive.)