Court: search warrants generally required for DWI blood draws; Warrantless DWI Tests Outlawed

The United States Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the human bloodstream is not a sufficient justification by itself to avoid the warrant requirement to conduct a blood draw in a routine drunk driving investigation. The long awaited McNeely decision (we previously previewed the McNeely case and its potential impact on Minnesota DWI cases last month) says that circumstances may arise in individual cases that make obtaining a warrant impractical, but the natural dissipation alone is insufficient to conduct a warrantless blood draw after a driving while impaired arrest.

Minnesota courts previously have ruled that the natural dissipation of alcohol creates a single factor exigency. What that essentially means is that the courts have held that the state did not have to show any other reason to conduct a blood draw without a warrant under Minnesota’s implied consent law if probable cause existed to suspect a driver of drunk driving. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, says no so fast.

The nation’s highest court recognizes that alcohol dissipates in a relatively predictable manner, and some delay may occur as a suspect is transported to a facility where a blood sample can be taken. Generally, criminal defense lawyers know that the dissipation of alcohol varies from person to person, and may involve many different and complex factors. The high court also says that in the 47 years since the U.S. Supreme Court addressed warrantless blood draws in DWI cases in the Schmerber case in 1966, technology has made obtaining a warrant more streamlined.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor says in writing the opinion of a divided court that, “While the desire for a bright-line rule is understandable, the Fourth Amendment will not tolerate adoption of an overly broad categorical approach that would dilute the warrant requirement in a context where significant privacy interests are at stake.” The court says that law enforcement should generally be required to obtain a warrant before obtaining a blood sample in a DWI investigation, but the issue may have exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Sources:

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Knowing how to choose a criminal defense lawyer in Minneapolis, MN, can help you hire a lawyer who will prepare an effective defense strategy and fight for the best result from your case. One of the crucial tips when selecting a criminal defense lawyer is to vet those with relevant experience in cases like yours. You can only do this when you thoroughly understand the charges you are facing.
People anticipating an arrest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, might ask, “What is the role of a defense attorney during an arrest?” A skilled criminal defense attorney can explain your options, ensure the police follow the rules, and protect your rights. The attorney will build a solid defense, talk to the prosecutor, and fight for your best interests.
Knowing when to hire a criminal lawyer for your case in Minnesota can help protect your constitutional rights and turn the odds in your favor. You should retain a criminal lawyer immediately after learning you are under investigation, get arrested, or are charged with a crime. Seasoned criminal lawyers understand the criminal justice system, can build a winning defense strategy, and aggressively push for a positive outcome of your case.