High court to weigh warrants for DUI blood tests

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for their official photograph Oct. 8, 2010, at the Supreme Court in Washington. From left to right, front row: Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. From left to right, back row: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. / AFP/Getty Images

(AP) WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will decide when law enforcement officers must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect.

The issue has divided federal and state courts around the country and the justices on Tuesday agreed to take up a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri.

In siding with the defendant in the case, the Missouri Supreme Court said police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except in special circumstances when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence.

Other courts have ruled that dissipation of alcohol in the blood is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without first getting a warrant.

The Missouri case was one of six new cases accepted for argument in front of the Supreme Court. The new term begins Monday and the cases probably will be argued in January.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Tyler McNeely, said the arresting officer made no effort to obtain a warrant and didn't think he needed one, not that he feared a delay would lower the level of alcohol in McNeely's blood. The ACLU said the case was not a good one for resolving complex issues of science and law.

According to court records, McNeely said he would refuse to provide a breath test that also can be used to measure blood-alcohol levels. The blood test showed McNeely's blood-alcohol content was .154 percent, well above the .08 percent legal limit.

A Missouri trial court suppressed the evidence, a decision upheld by the state Supreme Court.

The case is Missouri v. McNeely, 11-1425.

[jtdev1]

Whats going to happen is they are going to use this weak case to justify they police's case.

The police will walk away from this with the right to slice and dice you to death anytime they want without any warrant or justifiable need.

My opinion on this is that they should not be able to use anything like blood, urine or anything your body produces to convict you for any crime as it's self incrimination.