Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

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

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Stat. §§577.012(1)–(2) (West 2011) (establishing Missouri’s
0.08  percent  BAC  standard).    Moreover,  as  of  2005,  32 
States  and  the  District  of  Columbia  imposed  additional 
penalties for BAC levels of 0.15 percent or higher.  NHTSA 
State  Review  175.    Missouri  is  one  such  State.    See,  e.g., 
Mo. Stat. Ann. §§577.010(3)–(4), 577.012(4)–(5) (suspended 
sentence  unavailable  even  for  first  offenders  with  BAC 
above  0.15  percent  unless  they  complete  drug  treatment;
mandatory  jail  time  if  treatment  is  not  completed).    As  a 
result,  the  level  of  intoxication  directly  bears  on  enforce­
ment  of  these  laws.  Nothing  in  the  Fourth  Amendment 
requires officers to allow evidence essential to enforcement
of drunk-driving laws to be destroyed while they wait for a
warrant to issue. 

II 
In  today’s  decision,  the  Court  elides  the  certainty  of
evidence  destruction  in  drunk-driving  cases  and  focuses 
primarily on the time necessary for destruction.  In doing
so, it turns the exigency inquiry into a question about the 
amount  of  evidentiary  destruction  police  must  permit
before  they  may  act  without  a  warrant.    That  inquiry  is
inconsistent  with  the  actual  exigency  at  issue:  the  un­
contested destruction of evidence due to metabolization of 
alcohol.  See  Part  I,  supra.  Moreover,  the  Court’s  facts­
and-circumstances analysis will be difficult to administer, 
a  particularly  important  concern  in  the  Fourth  Amend­
ment context. 

The  Court’s  judgment  reflects  nothing  more  than  a 
vague  notion  that  everything  will  come  out  right  most  of 
the time so long as the delay is not too lengthy.  Ante, at 
12 (justifying delays in part because “BAC evidence is lost
gradually  and  relatively  predictably”);  ante,  at  10  (same, 
quoting Brief for Petitioner 27).  But hard percentage lines 
have  meaningful  legal  consequences  in  the  drunk-driving 
context.  The fact that police will be able to retrieve some