Among the cases before the Supreme Court this term is one particularly sticky one: warrantless blood tests in DUI cases. In the abstract, there’s not a lot of sentiment for letting police routinely order up needles for unwilling drunk-driving suspects. And the Missouri Supreme Court has already upheld a lower court’s order that threw out the coerced results from an impaired driver. It cited the Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
But in the real world, more than 10,000 people die each year in this country–one every 51 minutes–from crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers. And any delay in testing a suspect’s blood-alcohol content allows the alcohol to dissipate in the blood. It’s a de facto form of evidence destruction. Warrantless blood testing is seen as a law enforcement tool for expediting drunk-driving detection and deterrence–and timing is critical with lives at stake.
While a decision won’t be announced until the summer, a compromising approach emanated from, yes, Justice Antonin Scalia. “Why shouldn’t that determination be made case by case,” he asked. “And if it would have taken too long, then it’s okay without a warrant. If it wouldn’t have taken that long, it’s bad.”
Obviously a lot rides on the answer.