Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 25

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

not identify any other factors that would suggest he faced 
an  emergency  or  unusual  delay  in  securing  a  warrant. 
App.  40.  He  testified  that  he  made  no  effort  to  obtain 
a  search  warrant  before  conducting  the  blood  draw  even
though  he  was  “sure”  a  prosecuting  attorney  was  on  call
and even though he had no reason to believe that a magis­
trate  judge  would  have  been  unavailable.    Id.,  at  39,  41– 
42.  The  officer  also  acknowledged  that  he  had  obtained 
search  warrants  before  taking  blood  samples  in  the  past 
without difficulty.  Id., at 42.  He explained that he elected 
to forgo a warrant application in this case only because he
believed it was not legally necessary  to obtain a warrant. 
Id.,  at  39–40.    Based  on  this  testimony,  the  trial  court 
concluded  that  there  was  no  exigency  and  specifically 
found that, although the arrest took place in the middle of
the night, “a prosecutor was readily available to apply for 
a  search  warrant  and  a  judge  was  readily  available  to 
issue a warrant.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 43a.11 

The  Missouri  Supreme  Court  in  turn  affirmed  that
judgment,  holding  first  that  the  dissipation  of  alcohol  did 
not establish a  per se exigency, and second that the State 
could  not  otherwise  satisfy  its  burden  of  establishing 
exigent  circumstances.  358  S. W.  3d,  at  70,  74–75.    In 
petitioning  for  certiorari  to  this  Court,  the  State  chal­
lenged only the first holding; it did not separately contend 
that the warrantless blood test was reasonable regardless
of whether the natural dissipation of alcohol in a suspect’s
blood  categorically  justifies  dispensing  with  the  warrant 

—————— 

11 No  findings  were  made  by  the  trial  court  concerning  how  long  a
warrant would likely have taken to issue under the circumstances.  The 
minimal  evidence  presented  on  this  point  was  not  uniform.    A  second 
patrol  officer  testified  that  in  a  typical  DWI  case,  it  takes  between  90
minutes  and  2  hours  to  obtain  a  search  warrant  following  an  arrest.
App.  53–54.    McNeely,  however,  also  introduced  an  exhibit  document
ing  six  recent  search  warrant  applications  for  blood  testing  in  Cape
Girardeau County that had shorter processing times.  Id., at 70. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
­