MO: No exigency justified warrantless blood draw under Schmerber

No exigency justified ordering a doctor to take defendant’s blood in a DWI case, and the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence was affirmed. State v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012):

The patrolman here, however, was not faced with the “special facts” of Schmerber. Because there was no accident to investigate and there was no need to arrange for the medical treatment of any occupants, there was no delay that would threaten the destruction of evidence before a warrant could be obtained. Additionally, there was no evidence here that the patrolman would have been unable to obtain a warrant had he attempted to do so. The sole special fact present in this case, that blood-alcohol levels dissipate after drinking ceases, is not a per se exigency pursuant to Schmerber justifying an officer to order a blood test without obtaining a warrant from a neutral judge.

Seizure of a gun from the defendant was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The officers’ testimony was contradicted by the video. For example, they said the discussion was quiet and restrained, but the video showed them shouting obscenities at him. They also turned off the video because they said they wanted to protect his identity if they “turned him.” A first warrantless search was found valid, but the second was not. United States v. Rosas, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151622 (D. Minn. November 23, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.