Police officers must obtain a warrant to draw blood from a person suspected of drunken driving, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged emergency circumstances might require a blood test without a warrant. However, she said the court won't create a general exception to the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures simply because alcohol dissipates in the blood over time.
"In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so," Sotomayor wrote in a decision that was joined by four other justices.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. agreed with the outcome of the case but said the majority's opinion didn't provide enough guidance to police officers. He was joined by three other justices.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have allowed the blood test without a warrant.
Get the Story:
Supreme Court limits warrantless blood tests for drunken driving suspects
(The Washington Post 4/18)
Court Says Police Need Warrant for Blood Test
( The New York Times 4/18)
Supreme Court Decision:
Missouri v. McNeely (April 17, 2013)
Join the Conversation
