Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

6 

MISSOURI v. MCNEELY 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

compelling  need  to  search  because  alcohol—the  nearly 
conclusive evidence of a serious crime—is dissipating from 
the  bloodstream.  The  need  is  no  less  compelling  because 
the  police  might  be  able  to  acquire  second-best  evidence 
some other way.1 

B 
For  exigent  circumstances  to  justify  a  warrantless
search,  however,  there  must  also  be  “no  time  to  secure  a 
warrant.”    Tyler,  436  U. S.,  at  509;  see  Schmerber,  384 
U. S., at 771 (warrantless search legal when “there was no
time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant”).  In 
this  respect,  obtaining  a  blood  sample  from  a  suspected
drunk  driver  differs  from  other  exigent  circumstances 
cases. 

Importantly,  there  is  typically  delay  between  the  mo-
ment a drunk driver is stopped and the time his blood can
be  drawn.    Drunk  drivers  often  end  up  in  an  emergency 
room, but they are not usually pulled over in front of one. 
In  most  exigent  circumstances  situations,  police  are  just 
outside the door to a home.  Inside, evidence is about to be 
destroyed,  a  person  is  about  to  be  injured,  or  a  fire  has
broken  out.    Police  can  enter  promptly  and  must  do  so  to
respond effectively to the emergency.  But when police pull 
a  person  over  on  suspicion  of  drinking  and  driving,  they 
cannot  test  his  blood  right  away.2   There  is  a  time-

—————— 

1 And  that  second-best  evidence  may  prove  useless.    When  experts
have  worked  backwards  to  identify  a  defendant’s  BAC  at  the  time  he
was  driving,  defense  attorneys  have  objected  to  that  evidence,  courts 
have at times rejected it, and juries may be suspicious of it.  See, e.g., 1 
D. Nichols & F. Whited, Drinking/Driving Litigation §2:9, pp. 2–130 to
2–137  (2d  ed.  2006)  (noting  counsel  objections  to  such  evidence);  State 
v.  Eighth  Judicial  District  Court,  127  Nev.  ___,  267  P. 3d  777  (2011)
(affirming rejection of such evidence); L. Taylor & S. Oberman, Drunk 
Driving  Defense  §6.03  (7th  ed.  2010)  (describing  ways  to  undermine 
such evidence before a jury). 

2 This  case  involves  medical  personnel  drawing  blood  at  a  medical