This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A Missouri police officer stopped D’s truck after observing it exceed the posted speed limit and repeatedly crossed the centerline. D had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol on his breath. D acknowledged that he had consumed “a couple of beers” at a bar. D appeared unsteady on his feet when he exited the truck. D performed poorly on a battery of field sobriety tests and declined to use a portable breath-test device to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC). D was placed under arrest. D was taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The officer did not attempt to secure a warrant. The officer read the consequences of a refusal to submit voluntarily to the test. Refusal would result in an immediate revocation of his driver’s license for one year, and the refusal could be used against him in a future prosecution. D refused. The officer then directed a hospital lab technician to take a blood sample, and the sample was secured at approximately 2:35 a.m. D had a BAC at 0.154 percent, which was well above the legal limit of 0.08 percent. D as charged with DWI and moved to suppress the results of the blood test, arguing in relevant part that, under the circumstances, taking his blood for chemical testing without first obtaining a search warrant violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court agreed. It reasoned there were no circumstances suggesting the officer faced an emergency in which he could not practicably obtain a warrant. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. A court must engage in a totality of the circumstances analysis when determining whether exigency permits a nonconsensual, warrantless blood draw. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.