Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

6 

MISSOURI v. MCNEELY 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

evidence before it is all destroyed is simply not relevant to
the exigency inquiry.

The  majority  believes  that,  absent  special  facts  and
circumstances, some destruction of evidence is acceptable. 
See ante, at 9 (“sufficient for our purposes to note that . . . 
significant  delay  in  testing  will  negatively  affect  the  pro­
bative  value”  (emphasis  added)).  This  belief  must  rest 
on the assumption that whatever evidence remains once a 
warrant  is  obtained  will  be  sufficient  to  prosecute  the
suspect.  But that assumption is clearly wrong.  Suspects’ 
initial  levels  of  intoxication  and  the  time  necessary  to
obtain  warranted  blood  draws  will  vary  widely  from  case 
to  case.  Even  a  slight  delay  may  significantly  affect  pro­
bative value in borderline cases of suspects who are mod­
erately intoxicated or suspects whose BAC is near a statu­
tory  threshold  that  triggers  a  more  serious  offense.    See 
supra, at 4–5 (discussing laws penalizing heightened BAC 
levels).  Similarly, the time to obtain a warrant can be ex­
pected  to  vary,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  it  will
do so in a predictable fashion.

Further,  the  Court  nowhere  explains  how  an  officer  in
the  field  is  to  apply  the  facts-and-circumstances  test  it 
adopts.  First,  officers  do  not  have  the  facts  needed  to 
assess  how  much  time  can  pass  before  too  little  evidence
remains.  They will never know how intoxicated a suspect
is at the time of arrest.  Otherwise, there would be no need 
for  testing.  Second,  they  will  not  know  how  long  it  will 
take to roust a magistrate from his bed, reach the hospital,
or  obtain  a  blood  sample  once  there.  As  the  Minnesota 
Supreme  Court  recognized  in  rejecting  arguments  like 
those adopted by the Court today: 

“[T]he  officer  has  no  control  over  how  long  it  would 
take  to  travel  to  a  judge  or  the  judge’s  availability.
The  officer  also  may  not  know  the  time  of  the  sus­
pect’s  last  drink,  the  amount  of  alcohol  consumed,  or