SCOTUS to Decide Warrantless Blood Tests for DUI

Can a person suspected of drunk driving be compelled to submit to a blood test without a warrant?  That is the question before the U. S. Supreme Court today.

Blood Draw by Joshua/Yoon Hernandez at Flickr Creative Common

In October of 2010, a Missouri man, Tyler McNeely, was stopped by the  Missouri State Highway Patrol for speeding, after having a beer at a local bar.  Noticing signs of intoxication, the patrolman requested McNeely to submit to an alcohol breath test or blood test, which he refused.

After arresting McNeely,  Cpl. Mark Winder decided to take McNeely to the hospital for a blood test to “secure evidence of intoxication,” without first obtaining a warrant.

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.

The trial court agreed with McNeely and found 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 Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.  The Supreme Court will hear the case today.

Read the entire story by Ariane De Vogue at ABC.com.

If you believe your constitutional rights have been violated, the Lawyer Referral Service of the New Hampshire Bar Association can refer you to attorneys who specifically handle civil rights violations.  Call 603-229-0002 or submit an online referral request.

 

 

 

 

Justices Approve Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

Adam Liptak, correspondent for the NY Times wrote on April 2, 2012:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, but also public health and information about gang affiliations.

“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails.

The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures.

Read the entire story.

Being arrested is no picnic, and dealing with an arrest without an attorney can have serious consequences.  The Lawyer Referral Service of the New Hampshire Bar Association can connect you with an attorney  skilled with handling criminal matters.   All attorneys must meet specific education and experience criteria before receiving referrals from LRS in felony criminal matters.  Call LRS at 603-229-0002 or request an online referral.