Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 36

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

7 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

consuming  obstacle  to  their  search,  in  the  form  of  a  trip
to  the  hospital  and  perhaps  a  wait  to  see  a  medical  pro-
fessional. 
In  this  case,  for  example,  approximately  25
minutes  elapsed  between  the  time  the  police  stopped 
McNeely and the time his blood was drawn.  App. 36, 38.

As noted, the fact that alcohol dissipates gradually from
the bloodstream does not diminish the compelling need for 
a  search—critical  evidence  is  still  disappearing.    But  the 
fact that the dissipation persists for some time means that
the police—although they may not be able to do anything
about  it  right  away—may  still  be  able  to  respond  to  the
ongoing destruction of evidence later on.

There  might,  therefore,  be  time  to  obtain  a  warrant  in 
many  cases.  As  the  Court  explains,  police  can  often  re-
quest  warrants  rather  quickly  these  days.    At  least  30 
States  provide  for  electronic  warrant  applications.    See 
ante,  at  10–12,  and  n. 4.    In  many  States,  a  police  officer 
can call a judge, convey the necessary information, and be 
authorized  to  affix  the  judge’s  signature  to  a  warrant.
See, e.g., Ala. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.8(b) (2012–2013); Alaska
Stat.  §12.35.015  (2012);  Idaho  Code  §§19–4404,  19–4406
(Lexis  2004);  Minn.  Rules  Crim.  Proc.  36.01–36.08  (2010 
and  Supp.  2013);  Mont.  Code  Ann.  §46–5–222  (2012);  see 

—————— 

facility,  not  police  officers  doing  so  by  the  side  of  the  road.    See 
Schmerber  v.  California,  384  U. S.  757,  771–772  (1966)  (“Petitioner’s 
blood was taken by a physician in a hospital environment according to
accepted medical practices.  We are thus not presented with the serious
questions  which  would  arise  if  a  search  involving  use  of  a  medical
technique, even of the most rudimentary sort, were made by other than
medical  personnel  or  in  other  than  a  medical  environment—for  exam-
ple,  if  it  were  administered  by  police  in  the  privacy  of  the  station-
house”);  Brief  for  Respondent  53,  and  n.  21  (describing  roadside  blood 
draws in Arizona).  A plurality of the Court suggests that my approach
could  make  roadside  blood  draws  a  more  attractive  option  for  police,
but such a procedure would pose practical difficulties and, as the Court 
noted  in  Schmerber,  would  raise  additional  and  serious  Fourth 
Amendment concerns.  See ante, at 14–15.