Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

9 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

the exceptions to the warrant requirement . . . is not that 
they  always  be  correct,  but  that  they  always  be  reasona-
ble”);  Terry  v.  Ohio,  392  U. S.  1,  20  (1968)  (“police  must, 
whenever  practicable,  obtain  advance  judicial  approval  of
searches and seizures through the warrant procedure”).

Requiring  police  to  apply  for  a  warrant  if  practicable
increases  the  likelihood  that  a  neutral,  detached  judicial 
officer will review the case, helping to ensure that there is
probable  cause  for  any  search  and  that  any  search  is
reasonable.  We have already held that forced blood draws
can be constitutional—that such searches can be reasonable— 
but that does not change the fact that they are significant 
bodily  intrusions.  See  Schmerber,  384  U. S.,  at  770  (up-
holding  a  warrantless  forced  blood  draw  but  noting  the 
“importance  of  informed,  detached  and  deliberate  deter-
minations of the issue whether or not to invade another’s 
body  in  search  of  evidence  of  guilt”  as  “indisputable  and 
great”).  Requiring  a  warrant  whenever  practicable  helps 
ensure  that  when  blood  draws  occur,  they  are  indeed
justified.

At the same time, permitting the police to act without a
warrant  to  prevent  the  imminent  destruction  of  evidence
is well established in Fourth Amendment law.  There is no 
reason  to  preclude  application  of  that  exception  in  drunk 
driving  cases  simply  because  it  may  take  the  police  some
time to be able to respond to the undoubted destruction of
evidence,  or  because  the  destruction  occurs  continuously
over an uncertain period.

And  that  is  so  even  in  situations  where  police  have 
requested a warrant but do not receive a timely response. 
An officer who reasonably concluded there was no time to
secure  a  warrant  may  have  blood  drawn  from  a  suspect 
upon  arrival  at  a  medical  facility.  There  is  no  reason  an 
officer  should  be  in  a  worse  position,  simply  because  he
sought a warrant prior to his arrival at the hospital.