blog stage 8

Response to Paige Duecker’s Warrantless blood drawsI do agree with Paige on the article, but the courts did not specify on when exactly exigency is to be taken. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Missouri vs. McNeely that police officers must obtain a warrant before conducting blood draws on suspected impaired drivers. Justice Sotomayor delivered the Court’s opinion that the natural metabolism of alcohol does not grant a “per se” exigency that allows a blanket exception to the 4th Amendment requirement of obtaining a warrant in DUI cases, but that exigency must be determined on a case by case basis. The 8-1 opinion rejected the position held by the Obama administration and more than 30 states that all argued the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream automatically created an exception to the requirement for a warrant. In 2010, Tyler McNeely was pulled over in Missouri by a police officer who noticed signs of impairment. McNeely refused a breath test twice, so the officer had him transported to a hospital where a blood draw was performed without a warrant or McNeely’s consent. McNeely’s BAC came back at 0.154, and he was charged with DWI. He moved to have the results suppressed arguing that the warrantless blood draw was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights.After the state charged McNeely with driving while intoxicated, McNeely filed a motion to suppress evidence due to a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court sustained this motion. On June 21, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, reversed the trial court, holding that the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment applied so Winder did not need a warrant. Subsequently, in light of the “general interest and importance of the issue,” the Court of Appeals sua sponte transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial’s ruling in a per curiam opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 25, 2012, on the question of whether the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream triggers the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment. McNeely asserts that a warrantless blood test violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that a contrary ruling poses a grave threat to bodily integrity. Furthermore, McNeely argues that the state’s need for warrantless blood tests is insubstantial because most drunk driving suspects consent either to breathalyzer or blood tests. Missouri responds that allowing warrantless blood draws in these cases allows the state to more effectively pursue a vital interest in enforcing drunk driving laws and that the blood test constitutes only a minor intrusion which involves virtually no health risks. Furthermore, Missouri asserts that warrantless blood tests may be necessary because the delay in obtaining a warrant may allow the drunken driving suspect to partly or wholly metabolize the alcohol and thus destroy the most probative evidence of drunk driving. While both parties agree that drunk driving is a serious problem, they disagree sharply over whether allowing warrantless blood draws will enable states to more effectively enforce drunken driving laws and prosecute individuals suspected of violating those laws. McNeely argues that the privacy interest at stake here is substantial because the right to bodily integrity lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment. In support of this claim, McNeely cites the ancient legal treatise by William Blackstone who stated that individuals have an absolute right against intrusion of his life or body. Similarly, McNeely argues that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s language in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health echoes Blackstone’s earlier arguments: “[T]he Court has often deemed state incursions into the body repugnant to the interests protected by . . . Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, As a final matter, McNeely disagrees with Missouri’s interpretation of class and highlights the Supreme Court’s distinction between cars and people in terms of the privacy expectation. The following quote is from Steven R. Shapiro, ACLU national legal director, who represented Tyler McNeely before the Supreme Court: “We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced without abandoning constitutional rights. Today's decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy.” I do not believe this decision represents our Constitutional right that upholds the Fourth Amendment, stating that each case has its own determining facts on determining exigency which lies in the hands of officers, which has no clarity or specifications towards this matter when determining exigency towards a warrantless blood draw, when each case should carry its own exigency knowing that BAC will eventually dissipate in the bloodstream, this loophole or uncertainty will give officers the right to perform a warrantless blood draw according to their exigency on the matter. Warrantless blood draws do go against our Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.