Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 39

10 

MISSOURI v. MCNEELY 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

B 

The  Court  resists  the  foregoing,  contending  that  the
question presented somehow inhibits such a focused anal-
ysis  in  this  case.    See  ante,  at  20–23.    It  does  not.    The 
question presented is whether a warrantless blood draw is
permissible  under  the  Fourth  Amendment  “based  upon 
the  natural  dissipation  of  alcohol  in  the  bloodstream.” 
Pet.  for  Cert.  i.  The  majority  answers  “It  depends,”  and 
so  do  I.    The  difference  is  that  the  majority  offers  no  ad-
ditional  guidance,  merely  instructing  courts  and  police
officers  to  consider  the  totality  of  the  circumstances.    I 
believe  more  meaningful  guidance  can  be  provided  about 
how  to  handle  the  typical  cases,  and  nothing  about  the 
question presented prohibits affording that guidance.

A plurality of the Court also expresses concern that my
approach will discourage state and local efforts to expedite
the warrant application process.  See ante, at 14.  That is 
not  plausible:  Police  and  prosecutors  need  warrants  in  a 
wide  variety  of  situations,  and  often  need  them  quickly.
They  certainly  would  not  prefer  a  slower  process,  just
because that might obviate the need to ask for a warrant
in the occasional drunk driving case in which a blood draw 
is necessary.  The plurality’s suggestion also overlooks the 
interest  of  law  enforcement  in  the  protection  a  warrant
provides.

The  Court  is  correct  when  it  says  that  every  case  must
be  considered  on  its  particular  facts.    But  the  pertinent
facts  in  drunk  driving  cases  are  often  the  same,  and  the
police  should  know  how  to  act  in  recurring  factual  situa-
tions.  Simply put, when a drunk driving suspect fails field 
sobriety  tests  and  refuses  a  breathalyzer,  whether  a  war-
rant  is  required  for  a  blood  draw  should  come  down  to
whether there is time to secure one. 

Schmerber  itself  provides  support  for  such  an  analysis.
The Court there made much of the fact that “there was no