Missouri v. McNeely

Missouri v. McNeely
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 9, 2013 Decided April 17, 2013
Full case name	State of Missouri v. Tyler Gabriel McNeely
Citations	569 U.S. 141 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1552; 185 L. Ed. 2d 696; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3160; 81 U.S.L.W. 4250
Opinion announcement	Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior	motion to suppress evidence granted, unreported No. 10CG-CR01849-01 (Cir. Ct. Cape Girardeau Cty., Mo., Div. II, Mar. 3, 2011); case referred to higher court, 2011 WL 2455571 (Mo.App. E.D.); motion affirmed, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012); rehearing denied, unreported (Mo. March 6, 2012); cert. granted, 567 U.S. 968 (2012).
Holding
The fact that blood-alcohol levels dissipate after drinking ceases, is not a per se exigency pursuant to Schmerber justifying an officer to order a blood test without obtaining a warrant from a neutral judge.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Sotomayor, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Kagan (Parts I, II–A, II–B, and IV)
Plurality	Sotomayor, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan (Parts II–C and III)
Concurrence	Kennedy (in part)
Concur/dissent	Roberts, joined by Breyer, Alito
Dissent	Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. IV

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances.^[1][2] The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.