Entries in Blood Sample (2)


Supreme Court to Hear Case on Warrantless DUI Blood Tests

iStockphoto/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court will hear a case on Wednesday about a Missouri man who says his constitutional rights were violated when he was pulled over after drinking beer at a bar called Slinger's and forced to take a blood test without a warrant.

The man, Tyler G. McNeely, was stopped in October 2010 by Cpl. Mark Winder of the Missouri State Highway Patrol for speeding. Winder immediately noticed signs of intoxication including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a strong odor of alcohol.

McNeely admitted that he had consumed beer, but he would not consent to an alcohol breath test or a blood test after he was arrested for driving while intoxicated.

Winder, without getting a warrant, decided to take McNeely to the hospital for a blood test to secure evidence of intoxication.

That nonconsensual blood test -- considered a "search" in legalese -- is at issue in front of the Supreme Court, which is expected to clarify when and under what circumstances a warrantless search can occur in such cases.

In court papers, lawyers for Missouri say that Winder didn't attempt to obtain a search warrant prior to the blood test in part because, "Obtaining a search warrant in the middle of the night in Cape Girardeau County involves a delay, on average, of approximately two hours."

Winder was concerned about the rate of elimination of alcohol in the bloodstream, which diminishes over time.

It turns out McNeely's blood alcohol level was 0.154 percent, well above the legal limit of 0.08 percent.  In court, McNeely moved to suppress the evidence against him, saying his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.

A trial court ruled in favor of McNeely, finding that while there are exceptions to obtaining a warrant in such circumstances, including endangerment of life, and the destruction of evidence, McNeely's case fell outside of those exceptions.  The court said that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream alone was not a sufficient factor to justify a warrantless blood draw in a routine stop.

The case eventually landed at the Missouri Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Now, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal to the Missouri ruling.  At issue is a 1966 Supreme Court case, Schmerber v. California.  In that case -- involving an alcohol related arrest -- the Court provided some exceptions to the warrant requirement for the taking of a blood sample.

The holding was limited to certain "special facts" that might have led the officer in that case to believe he was faced with an emergency situation in which the delay in obtaining a warrant could be interpreted as the destruction of evidence.  Lower courts have interpreted Schmerber differently.

Attorneys for Cape Girardeau County, Mo., argue in court papers that "allowing a police officer to obtain a warrantless blood test from a drunk driver strikes a favorable balance between legitimate law enforcement interests and the privacy interests of the individual."

They say: "Although the dissipation rate will vary from person to person, one simple fact cannot be refuted -- during a drunk driving investigation the best and most probative evidence of the crime is being lost at a significant rate."

They say motorists have a diminished expectation of privacy, the officer had probable cause to arrest McNeely, and the "search" was conducted in a reasonable manner.

Thirty-two states have filed a brief supporting Missouri and urging the Supreme Court to adopt a rule allowing warrantless blood draws in every drunk-driving investigation.

"The States' interest in fairly and accurately determining guilt or innocence for this serious crime outweighs an individuals' interest in avoiding the slight intrusion involved in halting that evidence destruction by obtaining a blood sample," they write in a friend-of-the-court brief.

The American Civil Liberties Union is representing McNeely in the case and it argues that the Supreme Court should not adopt a general rule without consideration for specific circumstances in every case.

"The issue in this case is whether the police can compel a warrantless blood test in every DWI case," writes Steven R. Shapiro of the ACLU in court papers.

Shapiro notes that different states have different procedures for obtaining search warrants and that it has become common for some states to permit telephonic warrant applications.

He argues that whether a warrantless blood test is unreasonable should be determined based on the totality of the circumstances that include: whether there was anything that delayed the officers at the arrest scene, whether there was more than one officer at the scene, how far police have to travel to a hospital, and how long it typically takes to obtain a warrant in that jurisdiction.

Shapiro writes that Missouri "overstates the need for warrantless blood tests, and understates the affront to personal privacy and dignity when the States override an individual's objection and sticks a needle in his arm."

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio


'No Refusal' on New Year's Eve: Drunk Driving Policy May Save Lives But Stirs Controversy

Photo Courtesy - Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- If history holds up, this New Year's Eve will prove to have been a deadly night on America's roads. Deaths typically shoot up about 150 percent during the holiday, as intoxicated revelers get behind the wheel.

To combat drunk driving this year, police, prosecutors, and judges in several states are turning to an aggressive and controversial tactic -- the "No Refusal" strategy. Officials in at least seven states, including Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Utah and Idaho, have made this a "no refusal" weekend.

The tactic is designed to close a loophole that police see all too often, when a drunk driving suspect says no to a breathalyzer test, hoping to beat any charges in court. Instead this weekend, judges in the no-refusal states will be right there on standby, ready to issue warrants so police can take a blood sample if a suspect declines a breathalyzer test. The results from the blood test provide evidence for prosecutors.

"The no refusal program is a unique program that brings together judges, police officers, nurses and prosecutors in one centralized facility that takes away the ability of impaired drivers to prevent the police from getting evidence," said Warren Diepraam., the chief vehicular crimes prosecutor at the District Attorney's office in Montgomery County, Texas.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an average of 22.4 percent of drunk driving suspects refuse breathalyzer tests. NHTSA reports that 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes in 2009, a figure that accounts for nearly a third of all traffic fatalities in the U.S.

The federal government and Mothers Against Drunk Driving have firmly supported the "no refusal" strategy as a way to curtail deaths. NHTSA says the "no refusal" program results in more guilty pleas and fewer trials.

Still, there are critics of the "no refusal" plan, including criminal defense attorneys and the ACLU.

"There are two problems with this. One is the potential invalidity of the search warrants," said Marjorie Esman, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. "If they're being issued assembly-line style, there may not be the kind of individualized investigation in each particular case that's necessary for a valid search warrant."

"The other concern is the medical privacy issue," Esman said. "We don't know what they're doing with the blood samples -- whether they're data banking it, what kind of information they're going to glean from it."

But law enforcers say that little else has worked to keep drunk drivers off roads, and they hope that this tough tactic can save lives.

Copyright 2010 ABC News Radio

ABC News Radio