Score a victory for civil liberties and protections. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that police generally must seek a warrant before drawing blood in a suspected drunk driving case. In a section of criminal law that often turns due process on its head, this ruling is a positive one indeed.
In no other area of criminal law are you suspected guilty right off the bat. When it comes to drunk driving, in many states, you face immediate license suspension and other penalties even before you have your day in court. The whole ‘innocent until proven guilty’ just doesn’t seem to apply.
Several states were allowing police officers to get blood draws without warrants—Wisconsin and Missouri are just a few. And though the high court sided with the defendant in this particular case, they did leave some unfortunate loopholes that could still allow warrantless draws to occur.
The vote was 8-1 with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter. For him, like prosecutors, the dissipation of alcohol concentration within the blood stream warrants a quick response, one that seeking a warrant would unnecessarily slow down.
For the other justices, the ruling wasn’t quite so simple.
Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said police can get a warrant quickly, even using the cellphones or email to have it in a matter of minutes. Because a cop has to transport a suspect to a medical facility for the blood draw anyways (allowing the passage of time), some dissipation is inevitable.
But, she wrote, emergency circumstances could justify a warrantless draw, and that would have to be determined on a “case by case” basis and “later justified in court” says NPR.com.
Justices John Roberts, Breyer, and Alito agreed to a point but added that though the dissipation of alcohol doesn’t justify skipping the warrant requirement, officers need greater guidance when out in the field. They would have left the ultimate decision up to the officer.
So, what does this mean? The vagueness of the court opinions likely means police will still be able to do warrantless blood draws, but not as a standard. Emergency or otherwise pressing circumstances will have to outweigh the need for a warrant and these circumstances will have to be demonstrated in court. Of course, it’s very likely that the court’s ruling will be interpreted differently from police department to police department and from courtroom to courtroom.
You are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It’s this protection that could save you from prison time if your charges are based on an illegal search. If you are facing criminal charges, let us put you in touch with a local defense lawyer today.
About David Matson