The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Missouri case that challenges that state’s no refusal law, which applies mandatory sanctions to drivers suspected of driving drunk who refuse to test. In Missouri vs. McNeely, prosecutors in the state have appealed a lower court ruling that found forced blood draws to be in violation of the 4th Amendment as an “unreasonable search.”
In many states, No Refusal, also known as implied consent laws, are in place to prevent suspected drunk drivers from simply refusing a breath, blood, or urine test. The laws apply mandatory penalties, usually license suspension, for refusing to be tested. Some also allow jurors to consider a refusal to test as an admission of guilt.
Missouri prosecutors are appealing that state’s high court ruling. At issue is the timing required to obtain a search warrant compelling the testing, which allows suspects time to sober up, potentially below .08 BAC, the legal limit in all 50 states, or below a level that would engage higher-level charges for “Super drunk drivers,” usually .15 BAC. On average, people metabolize alcohol at a fairly consistent rate, which is one average drink (or 0.5 ounces of alcohol) per hour.
The American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that a search warrant, signed by a magistrate, should be required before compelling a suspect to have a blood test.
The No Refusal laws remain controversial for reasons other than the issues raised in Missouri vs. McNeely. In states where license suspension is the only penalty, test refusals soar. Texas reports put the refusal rate as high as 50% for suspected drunk drivers refuse testing, and that number jumps to over 70% for repeat offenders. According to MADD, 50-70% of drivers with a suspended license continue to drive during suspension.
Some jurisdictions that don’t have state No Refusal laws, such as Texas, instead launch No Refusal campaigns during holidays known for extreme rates of drunk driving. According to a December 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal about the Texas campaign, prosecutors estimate they can win 90% of drunk-driving cases with blood evidence.
Trending in the opposite direction, Kansas recently passed a new implied consent law that applies mandatory jail time for test refusal if you’re a repeat offender. Kansas previously reported that 30% of repeat DUI offenders in the state refuse testing.
What do you think? Do No Refusal laws violate the 4th Amendment? Can the body’s rapid metabolism of alcohol, the core issue for law enforcement and prosecutors, justify compelling suspects to have blood draws?
