The Supreme Court has turned down a request from prosecutors in Colorado to reconsider the use of warrantless blood draws as evidence in drunk driving cases.<\/p>\n
The prosecutors\u2019 request stemmed from the case of Jack Schaufele<\/a>. While Schaufele lay unconscious\u00a0in a Colorado hospital following a car crash, a police officer had the medical staff take a blood sample to check his BAC. The results showed Schaufele was almost three times the legal limit. However, a judge excluded the results of the test at trial because the officer had not obtained, or even tried to obtain, a search warrant.<\/p>\n The judge\u2019s decision was later affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court, which cited the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v. McNeely<\/em><\/a>. In that case the court upheld the suppression of a DUI suspect\u2019s blood draw that was taken without a warrant. The majority of justices dismissed arguments that the body\u2019s rapid metabolism of alcohol inherently creates exigent circumstances that allow for a blanket exception to the 4th<\/sup> Amendment and requirements to obtain a warrant for blood tests.<\/p>\n The court\u2019s 2013 ruling has impacted DUI laws across the country. Last fall, the Idaho Supreme Court<\/a> ruled that the state\u2019s implied consent statue wasn\u2019t enough to justify warrantless blood draws. Likewise, the Texas Supreme Court<\/a> struck down that state\u2019s \u201cno refusal\u201d law, which permitted law enforcement to collect blood from suspected drunk drivers who refused to be tested.<\/p>\n Thirteen other states supported Colorado\u2019s request for the Supreme Court to take the case, arguing that the requirement for a warrant cripples efforts to prosecute and punish drunk drivers. Has your jurisdiction enacted different procedures in order to fast track the approval of search warrants in DUI arrests?<\/p>\nTimeliness at Issue When Collecting DUI Evidence<\/strong><\/h3>\n
State Drunk Driving Laws Impacted by Ruling<\/h3>\n