{"id":8205,"date":"2013-01-09T19:03:30","date_gmt":"2013-01-09T17:06:38","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-01-09T17:06:38","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8205","title":{"rendered":"For What It’s Worth Dept.: “Supreme Court signals blood tests protected by Fourth Amendment”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court signals blood tests protected by Fourth Amendment<\/a> by M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News:<\/p>\n

Justices indicated Wednesday that the dangers of drunken driving don’t trump the Fourth Amendment, peppering lawyers for the state of Missouri with objections to their request that the Supreme Court allow law enforcement to order blood tests for DUI without suspects’ consent.<\/p>\n

The case, Missouri v. McNeely, is seen as a landmark that could clear up almost 50 years of uncertainty over the constitutionality of blood tests that are conducted without a warrant. Legal scholars say it could rewrite drunken-driving laws in all 50 states.<\/p>\n

The case hinges on how you interpret a 1966 opinion by then-Chief Justice William Brennan, who wrote (.pdf) that law enforcement should get a warrant before taking a blood draw without a suspect’s consent, except in a few very limited circumstances that rise to the level of an emergency.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See also ScotusBlog: Argument recap: Compromise on DUI blood tests?<\/a> by Lyle Denniston:<\/p>\n

Analysis:<\/p>\n

Even allowing for the reality that what is said at a Supreme Court hearing does not necessarily dictate the outcome, now and then a case comes along where the Justices join so obviously in a common pursuit of a compromise that little suspense remains. That happened on Wednesday, in the case of Missouri v. McNeely (docket 11-1425), when it seemed quite predictable that the Court is not going to let police across the nation order \u2014 on their own authority \u2014 the taking of blood samples from those suspected of drunk driving. Police, it would appear, are at least going to have to try to get a search warrant, even though they sometimes will be allowed to do without one.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}