ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û

At Issue is Whether DWI Suspects Can Be Forced to Provide Blood Samples Without a Warrant

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON -- ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro today argued before U.S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely to determine whether a motorist arrested for drunk driving can be forced to give a blood sample without consent and without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û is representing the respondent, Tyler McNeely.

Missouri’s top court had unanimously rejected a contention by the state that there should be a categorical exception to the warrant requirement in all DWI cases. Indeed, 26 states already ban the drawing of blood without a warrant.

"I don't think that the delays in getting a warrant justify the police sticking a needle in your arm because there's no evidence that those delays interfere with the state's ability to enforce drunk driving laws," said ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro.

"The interest that is being preserved is a very important principle, that before the government conducts a search, and especially a search as intrusive that involves putting a needle in your arm over your objection when you're restrained, that decision ought not to be made by the police themselves absent a true emergency, but ought to be reviewed and approved by a judge. That's the principle under which our constitutional law operates," Shapiro said.