Supreme Court Could Allow Police To Take Your Blood Without Warrant

A couple years ago, a Missouri man named Tyler McNeely was pulled over for speeding. According to the cop that pulled him over Cpl. Mark Winder, he appeared drunk and unsteady, so he asked that McNeely submit to a breath test. When McNeely refused, Winder took him to a hospital and ordered a blood test. McNeely refused the blood test, but Winder had the lab technician take his blood anyway to test his blood alcohol level. It turned out that McNeely had a blood alcohol level over the limit, after which he was arrested.

McNeely’s attorney persuaded the judge to throw out the blood test as evidence since there was no consent from the driver to be searched, and there was no warrant obtained by the cop. But the Missouri legislature had just changed a law that year regarding sobriety tests that allowed police to give anyone a breath or blood test with or without consent of the driver. In fact, based on the new language in the law, driving on Missouri roads itself is now an implied consent to be sobriety tested. If you choose to drive in a car, then you are giving your consent to be tested upon request by a cop. The language also states that refusing a sobriety test will be used as evidence against you.

Winder said in response that he was simply going by this new law change that didn’t require any further consent on McNeely’s part, and that since he was driving in Missouri, that’s all the cop needed to test him.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Portland Mayor Stands By Orders to Police to Stand Down as Dangerous Antifa Rioters Attacked Citizens

Further, Missouri prosecutors appealed to a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision in California. In Schmerber v. California, a Mr. Schmerber was in a car accident, and when he was transported to the hospital for medical treatment, his blood was also tested for alcohol level. No warrant was obtained, and because of the man’s condition, no consent was granted either. The court upheld that the police had a right to get the man’s blood tested without warrant or consent because of the “exigency” of the situation. The police officer was in effect investigating the accident scene, and obtaining a warrant to test the man’s blood would have taken too long. By the time the warrant was obtained, Mr. Schmerber’s body would have already metabolized the alcohol in his bloodstream.

For the past 50 years, prosecutors have appealed to this case as justification for police to test any driver’s blood for alcohol levels with or without consent or warrant. They argue that the test needs to be done in an “exigent” manner so that they get the most current reading before the blood is metabolized any further.

Now, the U.S. Federal Government has sided with Missouri prosecutors, writing “the fact that the evidence of intoxication is necessarily leaving the suspect’s system provides the required exigency.”

And under a separate Missouri law, Mr. McNeely’s driver’s license was revoked because he refused the breath and blood tests. If you refuse these tests even if you’re innocent, that’s against the law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could have an effect on all 50 states’ DUI laws. “If you’ve done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide,” right? Well, I’ve never driven drunk, but that doesn’t mean I want cops taking samples of my blood just because they can. I guess we don’t even own our own blood anymore.

As for DUI laws in general, I think they’re similar to gun control laws. Guns don’t kill people; people do. It doesn’t matter how many prescription drugs are in the killer’s system or how mentally deranged he is. If someone commits murder, that person should be executed. If someone kills another person while driving drunk, that drunk driver should be executed for murder (in general). You don’t ban cars or ban alcohol. You get at the source. The driver himself.

Assuming Mr. McNeely’s case is as cut and dried as it sounds, then he didn’t actually commit any crime at all. He was going over the speed limit, but he didn’t hit anyone, kill anyone, or damage anyone else’s property. If he had, that would be different.

DUI’s are more about revenue than protecting people from being killed by drunk drivers. Lauren Owens, a research attorney for a lawyer organization in Texas stated, “The outcome of the case could lead to a dramatic increase in the number of DWI cases supported by blood evidence.” It’s about money and power. They treat everyone like criminals, and if you dare try to exercise your Constitutional rights, you’ll go to jail.

Previous State/Wall Street Slavery In One Lesson
Next The NRA Got Harry Reid Re-Elected


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.