Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 48

8 

MISSOURI v. MCNEELY 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Brief for Respondent 56; App. 70.  Ultimately this factual
tiff  is  beside  the  point;  the  spotty  evidence  regarding 
timing  itself  illustrates  the  fact  that  delays  in  obtaining 
warrants  are  unpredictable  and  potentially  lengthy.    A 
rule  that  requires  officers  (and  ultimately  courts)  to  bal­
ance  transportation  delays,  hospital  availability,  and  ac- 
cess to magistrates is not a workable rule for cases where
natural  processes  inevitably  destroy  the  evidence  with 
every passing minute.

The  availability  of  telephonic  warrant  applications  is 
not  an  answer  to  this  conundrum.    See  ante,  at  10–12, 
and  n. 4.  For  one  thing,  Missouri  still  requires  written 
warrant  applications  and  affidavits,  Mo.  Ann.  Stat. 
§§542.276.2(1),  542.276.2.3  (West  Supp.  2012),  rendering 
the Court’s 50-State survey irrelevant to the actual dispo­
sition of this case.  Ante, at 11, n. 4.  But even if telephonic
applications were available in Missouri, the same difficul­
ties  would  arise.    As  the  majority  correctly  recognizes, 
“[w]arrants  inevitably  take  some  time  for  police  officers
or  prosecutors  to  complete  and  for  magistrate  judges  to
review.”  Ante,  at  12.    During  that  time,  evidence  is  de­
stroyed,  and  police  who  have  probable  cause  to  believe  a 
crime  has  been  committed  should  not  have  to  guess  how
long it will take to secure a warrant. 

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. 

* 

* 

*