Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

Cite as:  569 U. S. ____ (2013) 

1 

KENNEDY, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 11–1425 
_________________ 

MISSOURI, PETITIONER v. TYLER G. MCNEELY 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF 

MISSOURI
 

[April 17, 2013] 

JUSTICE KENNEDY, concurring in part. 
I  join  Parts  I,  II–A,  II–B,  and  IV  of  the  opinion  for  the 

Court. 

For  the  reasons  stated  below  this  case  does  not  call  for 
the Court to consider in detail the issue discussed in Part 
II–C and the separate opinion by THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 

As  to  Part  III,  much  that  is  noted  with  respect  to  the 
statistical  and  survey  data  will  be  of  relevance  when  this 
issue is explored in later cases.  The repeated insistence in
Part III that every case be determined by its own circum-
stances  is  correct,  of  course,  as  a  general  proposition;  yet 
it  ought  not  to  be  interpreted  to  indicate  this  question  is 
not  susceptible  of  rules  and  guidelines  that  can  give  im-
portant,  practical  instruction  to  arresting  officers,  in-
struction  that  in  any  number  of  instances  would  allow  a
warrantless  blood  test  in  order  to  preserve  the  critical 
evidence. 

States  and  other  governmental  entities  which  enforce
the driving laws can adopt rules, procedures, and protocols 
that  meet  the  reasonableness  requirements  of  the  Fourth 
Amendment and give helpful guidance to law enforcement
officials.  And this Court, in due course, may find it appro-
priate  and  necessary  to  consider  a  case  permitting  it  to
provide more guidance than it undertakes to give today.

As the opinion of the Court is correct to note, the instant
case, by reason of the way in which it was presented and