Missouri V. Mcneely ( 2013 ) - 1610 Words

Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. After refusing to take the breath test, McNeely was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital so they could do a blood test. McNeely refused, but the officer still told a lab technician to take his blood. His blood alcohol level tested far above the legal limit, and he was later charged with driving under the influence. He later argued that the taking of his blood without consent violated his Fourth Amendment rights in which the court agreed. I found this cas e interesting because we see a lot of drunk driving today and it s an uneasy feeling knowing that drunk drivers could possibly get away with the crime they are committing since it may take a while for an officer to get a warrant. I would like to see the stages that the Supreme Court went through to get to the decision they came up with. When McNeely got stopped by the police officer, he had told the officer that he had drunken a couple of beers. After he didn t pass many sobriety tests andShow MoreRelatedMissouri V. Mcneely ( 2013 )1609 Words   |  7 PagesMissouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because h e had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurredRead MoreUnited States, Missouri V. Mcneely, 569 U. S1404 Words   |  6 Pages Name and Citation of Case: United States, Missouri v. Mcneely, 569 U. S. (2013) Decision: The Supreme Court attests. The Court noticed that its point of reference requests a case-by-case examination when lower courts figure out if urgent conditions advocated a warrantless pursuit. However, the State contended that exigency essentially exists in any DWI related blood test given that blood-alcohol content quickly decreases with time, the Court found no argumentation to embrace a per se ruleRead MoreThe Court : The Supreme Court Exists1459 Words   |  6 Pagesexigency in DWI cases. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer â€Å"might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence,’ † id., at 770 (Missouri v. McNeely, 2013) How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting: The majorityRead MoreThe Evolution of Warrantless Searches With Alcohol, Blood, And DNA With the creation of the2200 Words   |  9 Pagesapplication of blood and DNA in regular law enforcement. The decisions in Samson v. California, Missouri v. McNeely, and Maryland v. King have assessed and standardized the use of blood and DNA technology in the United States of America. When assessing Fourth Amendment challenges to blood and DNA extraction and evaluation, Samson v. California remains essential to understand the evolution of the Fourth Amendment. In Samson v. California, a law enforcement officer, familiar with a defendant’s paroleRead MoreThe Fourth Amendment Under The Constitution Prohibits Unreasonable Searches And Seizures1121 Words   |  5 PagesThe Fourth Amendment under the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 353 (1967). The general rule under the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant to be obtained before a search. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2482 (2014). However, a search without a warrant may be reasonable if it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. Id. at 2482. Some exceptions that have been argued in drunk driving cases are â€Å"exigent circumstances† and â€Å"search-incident-to-arrestRead MoreThe Fourth Amendment Of The U.s. Constitution1332 Words   |  6 PagesThe search must be made when the arrest takes place and the area that can be searched is that which is in the immediate reach of the suspect. In deciding Chimel v. California (1969), the Supreme Court held that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the officer to search the arrestee for weapons and evidence. However, in Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police must obtain a warrant to search an arrestee s cellular phone. The Court said that earlier SupremeRead MoreWarren vs Rehnquist Courts Essay2137 Words   |  9 Pageswas Brown v Board of Education of Copeka, Kansas (1954). The court unanimously ruled that there is no place for the doctrine of separate but equal doctrine in the sphere of public education. The Warren Court d emonstrated its value for liberalism and activism. The view of the Warren Court was that states are a hindrance in the enhancement of a just nation. In the sphere of criminal procedure and law enforcement, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Court was associated with four chief cases: Terry v Ohio (1968)Read MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesCourier/Kendallville Cover Printer: Courier/Kendalville Text Font: 10.5/12 ITC New Baskerville Std Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on the appropriate page within text. Copyright  © 2013, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2005 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher priorRead MoreProject Mgmt296381 Words   |  1186 Pagesmanagement) 1977–2005. He received his B.A. in economics and management from Millikin University, M.B.A. from Indiana University, and doctorate in operations management from the College of Business, University of Oregon. He is certified Scrum Master. v â€Å"Man’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.† Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. To my family who have always encircled me with love and encouragement—my parents (Samuel and Charlotte), my wife (Mary), my sons and