Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2012 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MISSOURI v. MCNEELY 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 

No. 11–1425.  Argued January 9, 2013—Decided April 17, 2013 

Respondent McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speed-
ing and crossing the centerline.  After declining to take a breath test
to  measure  his  blood  alcohol  concentration  (BAC),  he  was  arrested
and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing.  The officer never at-
tempted  to  secure  a  search  warrant.    McNeely  refused  to  consent  to 
the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sam-
ple.  McNeely’s  BAC  tested  well  above  the  legal  limit,  and  he  was 
charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI).  He moved to suppress 
the blood test result, arguing that taking his blood without a warrant 
violated  his  Fourth  Amendment  rights.    The  trial  court  agreed,  con-
cluding  that  the  exigency  exception  to  the  warrant  requirement  did
not  apply  because,  apart  from  the  fact  that  McNeely’s  blood  alcohol 
was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an 
emergency. 
The  State  Supreme  Court  affirmed,  relying  on 
Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a 
DWI  suspect’s  warrantless  blood  test  where  the  officer  “might  rea-
sonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in 
which  the  delay  necessary  to  obtain  a  warrant,  under  the  circum-
stances,  threatened  ‘the  destruction  of  evidence,’ ”  id.,  at  770.    This 
case,  the  state  court  found,  involved  a  routine  DWI  investigation
where  no  factors  other  than  the  natural  dissipation  of  blood  alcohol
suggested that there was an emergency, and, thus, the nonconsensu-
al  warrantless  test  violated  McNeely’s  right  to  be  free  from  unrea-
sonable searches of his person. 

Held: The judgment is affirmed. 

358 S. W. 3d 65, affirmed. 

JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court with respect
to Parts I, II–A, II–B, and IV, concluding that in drunk-driving inves-
tigations,  the  natural  dissipation  of  alcohol  in  the  bloodstream  does