Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 44

4 

MISSOURI v. MCNEELY 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

is  drunk.  It  naturally  follows  that  police  may  conduct  a
search in these circumstances. 

A  hypothetical  involving  classic  exigent  circumstances 
further  illustrates  the  point.  Officers  are  watching  a 
warehouse  and  observe  a  worker  carrying  bundles  from 
the  warehouse  to  a  large  bonfire  and  throwing  them  into
the  blaze.    The  officers  have  probable  cause  to  believe 
the bundles contain marijuana.  Because there is only one
person  carrying  the  bundles,  the  officers  believe  it  will
take  hours  to  completely  destroy  the  drugs.  During  that
time  the  officers  likely  could  obtain  a  warrant.  But  it  is 
clear  that  the  officers  need  not  sit  idly  by  and  watch  the 
destruction of evidence while they wait for a warrant.  The 
fact that it will take time for the evidence to be destroyed 
and  that  some  evidence  may  remain  by  the  time  the  offi­
cers  secure  a  warrant  are  not  relevant  to  the  exigency.
However,  the  ever-diminishing  quantity  of  drugs  may 
have  an  impact  on  the  severity  of  the  crime  and  the 
length of the sentence.  See, e.g., 21 U. S. C. §841(b)(1)(D)
(lower penalties for less than 50 kilograms of marijuana); 
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 
§2D1.1(c)  (Nov.  2012)  (drug  quantity  table  tying  base 
offense level to drug amounts).  Conducting a warrantless 
search of the warehouse in this situation would be entirely 
reasonable. 

The  same  obtains  in  the  drunk-driving  context.    Just 
because it will take time for the evidence to be completely
destroyed  does  not  mean  there  is  no  exigency.    Congress
has conditioned federal highway grants on states’ adoption
of laws penalizing the operation of a motor vehicle “with a 
blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or greater.”  23 
U. S. C. §163(a).  See also 23 CFR §1225.1 (2012).  All 50 
States  have  acceded  to  this  condition.    National  Highway 
Traffic  Safety  Admin.  (NHTSA),  Alcohol  and  Highway 
Safety:  A  Review  of  the  State  of  Knowledge  167  (No. 
811374,  Mar.  2011)  (NHTSA  State  Review);  Mo.  Ann.