California Highway Patrol Will Stop Forced Blood Draws In Wake Of Missouri v. McNeely

In Missouri v. McNeely, the United States Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument that the possible dissipation of alcohol in a DUI suspect’s blood  will always create an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless blood draw.  In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that the 1966 decision Schmerber v. California did not establish a per se exception to the requirement of a search warrant to forcibly extract blood from an unwilling DUI subject.  The Court ruled that while the dissipation of alcohol is a factor, courts should address the question of exigency on a case by case basis looking at the totality of the circumstances.  The Justices reaffirmed the importance of warrants even in routine DUI cases and noted that improvement in communications permits law enforcement to obtain warrants without jeopardizing blood alcohol evidence.  The California Supreme Court has interpreted Schmerber  in the broadest sense and has used the dissipation of alcohol to not only permit  warrantless blood draws in all DUI refusal cases but also to justify warrantless entries into the homes of suspected DUI drivers.  NcNeely is bound to have a dramatic impact on DUI cases in California and in Orange County in particular where many police agencies resort to warrantless blood draws in every refusal case.  The California Highway Patrol was quick to respond to the decision in McNeely and announced that they would suspend non-consensual blood testing in misdemeanor DUI cases and would obtain search warrants for blood in felony cases unless there are factor which create an exigency beyond the mere dissipation of alcohol.  Having an experienced DUI lawyer in Orange County can help you raise these important challenges in your DUI case.  For more information, go to www.duilawyerorangecounty.com