Earlier this year, we covered the Cape Girardeau County Breathalyzer refusal case that made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, a man suspected of drunk driving was required to submit to a warrantless blood test after refusing to take a breath test. The court recently ruled that this was a violation of the man’s constitutional rights.

In a nearly unanimous decision, which isn’t too common, the court determined that Missouri law enforcement officials should have sought a warrant to draw the man’s blood. The officers in this case justified their decision by saying they were worried about the evidence diminishing. However, the court determined that “dissipation of alcohol in the blood” is not a reason to gloss over protections against warrantless searches and seizures.

At the same time, however, this ruling may allow the possibility of warrantless blood draws under rare circumstances. The Missouri Supreme Court determined that a warrant wasn’t necessary when waiting to receive court approval would threaten a person’s safety or “destroy potential evidence,” but the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t delve in to this aspect of the case.

For those whose constitutional rights are violated during an arrest, challenging charges on those grounds is of the utmost importance. If the Fourth Amendment isn’t upheld, police would have complete latitude in how they conduct investigations and arrests. After all, seeking out a warrant is not a burden for police; rather, it’s a way of making sure that the justice system remains fair.

As Missouri law enforcement officials adjust to the results of this case, it will be important for those who have their blood drawn after being suspected of DWI to ensure that a warrant was obtained.

Source: Kansas City Star, “U.S. Supreme Court denies Missouri’s push for warrantless blood tests in DUI cases,” Brian Burnes, April 18, 2013

• To learn more about your legal options after being arrested on suspicion of drunk driving, please visit our St. Louis DWI page.

Although the verdict wasn’t reached in a Missouri court, a recent DWI story out of another state is reminiscent of a Missouri case that will soon be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The primary legal question in both cases is whether or not it is a violation of constitutional rights to force drunk driving suspects to submit to a blood test without a warrant.

In the out-of-state case, a man charged for drunk driving was finally acquitted after years of appeals. After he refused to take a roadside breath test, the man was brought to a hospital for a blood test. In order to obtain the blood sample, a police officer sat on the man’s chest while a nurse drew his blood.

The state court of appeals ruled that it was a violation of the man’s Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against warrantless searches and seizures. For many years, police departments throughout the country have required those suspected of DWU to submit to blood tests if they refuse a breath test. They argue that they don’t have time to obtain a warrant before the blood-alcohol content wears off.

While automatic blood tests have been a common practice for quite some time, many argue that police officers do have enough time to obtain warrants, which could invalidate the evidence used in court.

This summer, the nation’s top court will finally hand down their ruling in the Missouri blood-draw case. As those charged with DWI after refusing a breath test move to trial, the forthcoming judgment is likely to play a major role in the success of defense strategies and validity of blood evidence collected by police.

Source: Winston-Salem Journal, “Winston-Salem man who alleged that police violated his rights acquitted of DWI,” Michael Hewlett, March 15, 2013

• Our firm has experience handling a variety of drunk driving cases. To find out more, please check out our St. Louis DWI page.

In Missouri, when an injurious car accident leads to DWI charges, the possible penalties a driver could face upon conviction are very serious. A strong DWI defense is crucial to protecting a defendant’s rights and freedom. A 44-year-old St. Louis woman will need precisely this kind of defense after her car collided with another vehicle while going the wrong way on a local highway. Two people in the other vehicle were seriously injured, and now the accused driver is up against a number of charges, some of which are felonies. The crash happened shortly before 3 p.m. back on Oct. 13, 2012, but the defendant was only recently charged with misdemeanor assault, felony assault while intoxicated and misdemeanor drunk driving. Both drivers reportedly tried to avoid a collision, but the vehicles nonetheless collided head-on. The woman was said to be unresponsive when police arrived, and they claim to have seen a bottle of vodka on the floorboard of her car. A local report doesn’t indicate whether or not the bottle had been opened. A subsequent blood test showed the woman’s blood-alcohol content to be 0.149 percent. Of course, the legal limit to drive is 0.08 percent. There was no word as to whether the defendant in this case has any prior drunk driving offenses. Still, since the accident in question involved injuries, prosecutors can pursue felony charges, regardless of the defendant’s previous driving record. To protect against possible jail time, heavy fines and the loss of her driver’s license, she will need a strategic and meaningful DWI defense. Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Wrong-way driver charged with assault, careless driving in Lincoln County crash,” Susan Weich, March 4, 2013

ARE DUI BLOOD TESTS REALLY ACCURATE?

A great number of Missouri residents who have been charged with a DWI may be familiar with a blood sample test. Although the procedure is usually seen as the most assured and accurate way to determine blood alcohol content, an east coast drunk driving case may soon call that accuracy into question, as a forensic pathologist asserts that the sample of a defendant was improperly cared for, causing the blood to ferment and display a fallaciously high alcohol content.

The defendant in question, who was involved in a two-car collision which lead to the death of the passenger in his vehicle, had been charged with drunk driving, criminally negligent homicide, and reckless endangerment-charges predominantly predicated on the very high .17 percent blood-alcohol content derived from his blood sample.

However, according to a well-credentialed forensic pathologist, who was brought in by the man’s defense attorney, the blood sample evidence was not given a proper preservative, nor was it contained in the standard method for hospitals and police laboratories.

These mishandlings of the sample discredit the alcohol content reading, it is being argued.

Should the blood sample be suppressed in the case, the legal situation of the defendant will change dramatically and almost instantaneously. Currently an early March trial date has been set, and the man has pleaded not guilty to his charges.

Although damning laboratory evidence results can often be interpreted as iron-clad in a DUI or DWI case, this case is a perfect example of the complexities (and with them, opportunities) that are wrapped up in every drunk driving investigation. With the help of a skilled defense attorney, such opportunities can be fully explored, all for a defendant’s long term legal benefit.

Source: Post Star, “Forensic pathologist aids defense in fatal crash case,” Don Lehman, Jan 21, 2013

• Our firm is well-versed in the ins and outs of a drunk driving case. For more information, please visit our St. Louis DWI defense page.

When a person is pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, the common practice is for an officer to ask the driver to submit to a breathalyzer blood-alcohol test. While other sobriety tests such as field coordination examinations and direct syringe extraction of blood for medical testing are available, most often the breathalyzer test is relied upon to determine intoxication.

Drivers in Missouri, indeed in all 50 states, have the right to refuse a breathalyzer test after being pulled over, unless an officer has obtained a warrant for the test’s use. Usually this refusal results in an automatic suspension of drivers’ licenses.

However, in some cases, officers might ignore both a driver’s requests and the absence of a warrant, moving forward with breath and/or blood tests at their own discretion. Just such a case, stemming from an October 2010 DUI investigation, has now made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pulled over by a Missouri patrolman on Oct. 3, 2010, a Cape Girardeau man refused to submit to a breathalyzer test, but was taken by an officer to a nearby hospital and given a direct, needle-based blood test anyway. The results were clear: the man’s blood-alcohol level sat at .154 percent-well above the legal limit of .08.

A local judge initially threw out the hospital’s test result on account of the lack of a warrant, but appeals and contestations have brought the matter all the way to the highest court in the land. An attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, who has come to the support of the Missouri defendant, has stressed drivers’ Fourth Amendment right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

Justice Sotomayor made note of the difficult precedent that may be set by a ruling that allows breathalyzer testing despite a driver’s refusal and the absence of a warrant, noting that such approval could quickly be extended to syringe tests-a highly invasive search.

The outcome of this Supreme Court will have far-reaching implications for all DUI and DWI defendants, both in Missouri and across the country. When the complicated legal questions of warrants, consent, and constitutional rights come into play, the heightened insight of a drunk driving defense attorney can help guide a defendant to the most favorable outcome.

Source: St. Louis Beacon, “Supreme Court hears arguments in issouri case involving warrantless blood test,” Robert Koenig, Jan. 9, 2013