By THELAW.TV
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of
involuntarily blood draws on drunken-driving suspects without a
warrant. This outcome could determine the future of DUI cases in the
country and whether certain states are violating a person's Fourth Amendment
rights by doing so.
As widely reported, Missouri resident Tyler McNeely refused to
consent to a breath or blood test after his DUI arrest, but a state patrolman
ordered a phlebotomist to draw his blood anyway. The problem? He did so without
first seeking a warrant from a judge.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is
representing McNeely, said the arresting officer made no effort to obtain a warrant
because he didn't believe he needed one.
"Critics of the involuntary blood draw are suggesting that
having blood drawn without consent is much like the constitutionally banned
practice of involuntary stomach pumps in search of evidence," says attorney
Martin Sweet of the legal information website THELAW.TV.
Although McNeely's blood-alcohol level was above the legal
limit, a Missouri court upheld his argument that the method used to obtain the
results was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
The state appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which ruled
that law enforcement officials need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except
in special circumstances when a delay could threaten a life or destroy
potential evidence.
That's not uncommon. Florida law, for instance, requires a
warrant to collect blood samples from drunken driving suspects unless there is
serious bodily injury or death.
"Whether a particular defendant is guilty of the crime charged,
or whether getting a warrant would be inconvenient, are absolutely irrelevant
to the Constitutional protections we all enjoy," says Sweet.
In Washington, however, a new law allows troopers to draw blood from
them even if they won't give it voluntarily.
Does extracting bodily fluids without consent cross a line? Some
seem to think so.
"Since we already have a large problem with the ethics of
our police in Washington, this is just another law that was most likely started
in good will," Ryan Brooks, host of the Sound of Freedom radio show, told
the Examiner.com. "However, it will be just another way for police to
abuse the rights of citizens. We cannot force morality on people, and this will
not do any good."
The High Court judges are expected to hear the case in January.
