State v. McNeely
2012 Mo. LEXIS 3
Mo.2012Background
- Missouri patrolman, during a routine traffic stop for speeding at 2:08 a.m., observed signs of intoxication and arrested Defendant for DWI.
- Defendant refused to submit to a breath test; the patrolman ordered a blood draw without seeking a warrant based on an officer’s belief from a prior article that implied consent law allowed it.
- A phlebotomist drew Defendant’s blood at 2:33 a.m.; the blood test showed blood alcohol well above the legal limit.
- The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress the blood test results as a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw violating the Fourth Amendment.
- The State appealed interlocutorily, contending Schmerber provides a broad exigency for warrantless blood draws in DWI cases.
- The court must determine whether the dissipating nature of blood-alcohol alone creates a sufficient exigency under the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is blood dissipating alone an exigency to dispense with a warrant? | McNeely relies on dissipating BAC as sufficient exigency. | Schmerber requires special facts beyond mere dissipation. | Dissipation alone is insufficient; no exigency exists here. |
| Must there be ‘special facts’ beyond dissipation to justify warrantless blood draws under Schmerber? | Rodriguez and other jurisdictions treat dissipation plus other factors as exigent. | No additional special facts; routine DWI stop lacks emergency. | Schmerber requires special facts; none present here. |
| Does Schmerber permit a nonconsensual, warrantless blood draw incident to arrest in routine DWI cases? | Schmerber can be read to allow it in DWI context. | Schmerber is limited to cases with emergency facts; not routine. | Schmerber does not authorize routine warrantless blood draws without exigent facts. |
| Should Missouri follow jurisdictions that adopt per se dissipation-based exigencies? | Some states allow per se exigency from dissipation. | Missouri should not adopt per se rule; must follow Schmerber totality. | Reject per se dissipation rule; adopt totality-of-the-circumstances approach. |
| What is the proper standard of review for suppression rulings in this context? | Not explicitly contested here; focus is on law of exigency. | Trial court findings should be upheld if supported by facts. | Fourth Amendment question analyzed de novo; factual findings reviewed for clear error; standard remains as stated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (established limited exigency exception for blood draws with special facts)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 598 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2010) (exigent circumstances exist to avoid destruction of evidence)
- State v. Rodriguez, 156 P.3d 771 (Utah 2007) (dissipation alone not per se exigent; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Johnson, 744 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa 2008) (Schmerber requires more than dissipation; time delay analyzed with emergency facts)
- United States v. Chapel, 55 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1995) (blood draw may be based on probable cause but must show emergency facts)
- State v. Bohling, 494 N.W.2d 399 (Wis. 1993) (rejects per se dissipation exigency; requires special facts)
- Machuca, 227 P.3d 729 (Or. 2010) (per se dissipation not ordinarily exigent)
- Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202 (Minn. 2009) (single-factor exigent based on dissipation rejected)
- Johnson, Johnson (Iowa 2008) (time-based considerations present Schmerber-like exigency)