Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred
Name and Citation of Case: United States, Missouri v. Mcneely, 569 U. S. (2013) Decision: The Supreme Court attests. The Court noticed that its point of reference requests a case-by-case examination when lower courts figure out if urgent conditions advocated a warrantless pursuit. However, the State contended that exigency essentially exists in any DWI related blood test given that blood-alcohol content quickly decreases with time, the Court found no argumentation to embrace a per se rule. The
exigency in DWI cases. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence,’ ” id., at 770 (Missouri v. McNeely, 2013) How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting: The majority
application of blood and DNA in regular law enforcement. The decisions in Samson v. California, Missouri v. McNeely, and Maryland v. King have assessed and standardized the use of blood and DNA technology in the United States of America. When assessing Fourth Amendment challenges to blood and DNA extraction and evaluation, Samson v. California remains essential to understand the evolution of the Fourth Amendment. In Samson v. California, a law enforcement officer, familiar with a defendant’s parole
The Fourth Amendment under the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 353 (1967). The general rule under the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant to be obtained before a search. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2482 (2014). However, a search without a warrant may be reasonable if it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. Id. at 2482. Some exceptions that have been argued in drunk driving cases are “exigent circumstances” and “search-incident-to-arrest
However, in Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police must obtain a warrant to search an arrestee 's cellular phone. The Court said that earlier Supreme Court decisions permitting searches incident to an arrest without a warrant do not
This decision raised controversy with regard to the exclusion of illegally acquired evidence across all levels of the United States court system. In Gideon v Wainwright (1963), the court dealt with the issue of right to counsel for non-capital and capital cases. The court was to determine whether states need to appoint lawyers for defendants who could not pay in both capital and non-capital offenses. In a