Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

MISSOURI v. MCNEELY 

Opinion of the Court 

warrant  to  prevent  the  imminent destruction  of evidence. 
See  Cupp  v.  Murphy,  412  U. S.  291,  296  (1973);  Ker  v. 
California,  374  U. S.  23,  40–41  (1963)  (plurality  opinion).
While  these  contexts  do  not  necessarily  involve  equiva- 
lent  dangers,  in  each  a  warrantless  search  is  potentially
reasonable  because  “there  is  compelling  need  for  official 
action and no time to secure a warrant.”  Tyler, 436 U. S., 
at 509. 

To  determine  whether  a  law  enforcement  officer  faced 
an emergency that justified acting without a warrant, this 
Court looks to the totality of circumstances.  See Brigham 
City  v.  Stuart,  547  U. S.  398,  406  (2006)  (finding  officers’ 
entry into a home to provide emergency assistance “plain­
ly  reasonable  under  the  circumstances”);  Illinois  v.  Mc-
Arthur,  531  U. S.  326,  331  (2001) (concluding  that  a  war­
rantless seizure of a person to prevent him from returning
to his trailer to destroy hidden contraband was reasonable 
“[i]n  the  circumstances  of  the  case  before  us”  due  to  exi­
gency);  Cupp,  412  U. S.,  at  296  (holding  that  a  limited 
warrantless  search  of  a  suspect’s  fingernails  to  preserve
evidence  that  the  suspect  was  trying  to  rub  off  was  justi­
fied  “[o]n  the  facts  of  this  case”);  see  also  Richards  v. 
Wisconsin,  520  U. S.  385,  391–396  (1997)  (rejecting  a 
per se  exception  to  the  knock-and-announce  requirement 
for  felony  drug  investigations  based  on  presumed  exigen­
cy,  and  requiring  instead  evaluation  of  police  conduct  “in 
a particular case”).  We apply this “finely tuned approach”
to  Fourth  Amendment  reasonableness  in  this  context  be- 
cause  the  police  action  at  issue  lacks  “the  traditional
justification  that  . . .  a  warrant  . . .  provides.”  Atwater  v. 
Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318, 347, n. 16 (2001).  Absent that 
established  justification,  “the  fact-specific  nature  of  the 
reasonableness  inquiry,”  Ohio  v.  Robinette,  519  U. S.  33, 
39 (1996), demands that we evaluate each case of alleged
exigency based “on its own facts and circumstances.”  Go-
Bart  Importing  Co.  v.  United  States,  282  U. S.  344,  357