Missouri v. McNeely

E390989

Missouri v. McNeely is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for nonconsensual blood draws in drunk-driving investigations, rejecting a per se rule based on the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
Missouri v. McNeely canonical 2

Statements (46)

Predicate Object
instanceOf Fourth Amendment case
United States Supreme Court case
drunk driving case
search and seizure case
citation 133 S. Ct. 1552
185 L. Ed. 2d 696
569 U.S. 141
clarifies Schmerber v. California
concurrenceBy Anthony M. Kennedy
Elena Kagan
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
surface form: U.S. Const. amend. IV
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate 2013-04-17
decisionType plurality decision
dissentBy Clarence Thomas
John G. Roberts Jr.
Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Stephen G. Breyer
docketNumber 11-1425
holding In drunk-driving investigations, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant before a nonconsensual blood test may be administered.
The natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute a per se exigency justifying a warrantless blood draw in drunk-driving investigations.
impact limited police authority to conduct warrantless blood draws in DUI cases
joinedByInMajority Antonin Scalia
Elena Kagan
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
jurisdiction United States of America
surface form: United States
legalIssue Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
surface form: Fourth Amendment

exigent circumstances
nonconsensual blood draw
warrant requirement
majorityOpinionBy Sonia Sotomayor
originatingCourt Missouri state court
overrules per se exigency rule based solely on alcohol dissipation
petitioner Missouri
surface form: State of Missouri
pluralityOpinionBy Sonia Sotomayor
relatedTo Schmerber v. California
respondent Tyler G. McNeely
rule Exigency for warrantless blood draws must be determined case by case under the totality of the circumstances.
subjectMatter driving while intoxicated
warrantless searches
subsequentCitation Birchfield v. North Dakota
Navarette v. California
term October Term 2012
yearDecided 2013

Referenced by (2)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

October Term 2012 includesCase Missouri v. McNeely
October Term 2013 hasPart Missouri v. McNeely