The Supreme Court appeared reluctant Wednesday to allow police to order blood tests routinely for unwilling drunken-driving suspects without at least trying to obtain a search warrant from a judge.
The court heard arguments Wednesday in a case about a disputed blood test from Missouri, against the backdrop of a serious national problem of more than 10,000 deaths from crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers in 2010, about one every 51 minutes.
That number has dropped by 60 percent in the past 20 years because of a sustained national crackdown on drunken driving. Lawyers for Missouri and the Obama administration argued that dispensing with a warrant requirement would further that effort because any delay in testing a suspect’s blood-alcohol content allows alcohol to dissipate in the blood.
“Here, police are facing the certain destruction of blood-alcohol evidence,” Justice Department lawyer Nicole Saharsky said.
But justices across the ideological spectrum questioned whether the intrusive procedure of sticking a needle in someone’s arm to draw blood should be done routinely without the approval of a judge. At the same time, they made clear that they did not want to unduly delay the collection of blood samples.
Wednesday’s case stemmed from the arrest of Tyler McNeely in rural Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. A state trooper stopped McNeely’s speeding, swerving car, and the driver, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.
He failed several field sobriety tests.
The trooper drove McNeely to a hospital. A technician drew blood from McNeely, who was handcuffed throughout the process.
McNeely’s blood-alcohol content was .154 percent, well above the .08 percent legal limit.
But the Missouri Supreme Court upheld a lower-court order that threw out the results of the blood test. The state high court said the blood test violated the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.