According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, Americans are protected against unwarranted search and seizure. Yet some police officers have been violating this right be issuing blood tests without a warrant. According to Houston News, the U.S. Supreme Court took up this issue after it became a point of debate in the state of Missouri. A DUI defense attorney made a point by asking the question "if you can't go inside a house without a warrant, why should an officer be allowed to put a syringe into a suspect's body without one?"

Law enforcement officers argue that the blood-alcohol content after drinking will dissipate as the hours drag on. Police say that if they need to obtain a warrant, the driver may have a BAC below 0.08% by the time that the warrant is obtained. This means that the driver will be innocent of a DUI, even if he or she had a BAC well above 0.08% while driving. The Missouri Supreme Court recently declared that blood-alcohol dissipation does not authorize a warrantless blood draw. Prosecutors then took this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, and this highest court upheld the decision.

The debate was centered on a case regarding a Missouri man who was stopped for speeding. A law enforcement officer asked him to perform field sobriety tests, which he failed. At this time, the officer administered a blood test. The individual registered a BAC of 0.154 percent, which is almost twice the local limit of 0.08 percent. After failing multiple field sobriety tests, the officer had enough evidence to petition for a warrant. Yet instead he decided to take the suspect to the hospital and get a blood sample immediately. The suspect was handcuffed throughout the process. When he was arrested and charged with a DUI, a DUI defense attorney argued that the blood draw was a violation of the man's constitutional rights, and that he did not deserve punishment because the evidence fathered was inadmissible.

When the case first went to a Missouri court, the judge threw out the results of the blood test. The prosecution then appealed, and the court kept the same verdict. One attorney says this is the reason there are warrants and probable cause arguments in the country. The attorneys and courts argued it is not sufficient to claim a victim's BAC may dwindle while the officer is getting a warrant. Courts determined that all Americans are protected from unlawful search and seizure, and blood tests are a search and seizure action.

The courts acknowledged that there are some occasions where it is legal for an attorney to conduct a search without a warrant in order to prevent eminent destruction of evidence. This is applicable in drunk-driving investigations where there is no other way for an officer to get a blood sample. About half of the states in the U.S. will draw warrantless blood samples without any pressing circumstances. The Supreme Court did not distinguish between acceptable warrantless blood samples and unacceptable warrantless blood samples, but left this up to state courts to decide. Still, this new ruling may help to give all states clarity on this issue.

The Supreme Court also mandated that there is a No Refusal policy when it comes to blood draws in the United States. Those that refuse to allow a blood sample to test for drug use may have their licenses revoked. Blood tests are the best way for police officers to determine if a driver was under the influence of illegal drugs. If you want more information about blood tests or believe that you were arrested on a warrantless blood test and want to dispute the constitutionality of the test talk to a local DUI attorney today!