The Missouri Supreme Court recently ruled that police officers in the state need to first get a warrant before forcing a suspected drunk driver to submit to a hospital blood draw to test for alcohol. The only time that a warrant would not first be needed, would be in cases where the driver could escape, destroy evidence or is considered to be a danger to life. In those situations, a blood draw can still be done without a warrant.

The recent case before the Supreme Court stemmed from a 2010 traffic stop in Missouri where an officer was accusing a man of driving drunk. The man was pulled over at 2:08 a.m., and during the traffic stop, refused to take a breath test. After his refusal, the police officer brought the man to a hospital, where his blood was taken at 2:33 a.m. The claim was that this was an unconstitutional search since a warrant was not first obtained.

The Supreme Court ended up siding with the lower court's decision to suppress the blood test from evidence during the man's court case.

When looking at the entire situation, only 25 minutes had gone by from when the man was pulled over, to when his blood was drawn. During this time, there were no other emergencies that the officer had to quickly respond to, nor were there any other special circumstances that would have warranted taking the man's blood without a search warrant.

Additionally, the court found that the fact that alcohol dissipates in the blood stream over time is not enough of a reason to take a person's blood without a warrant.

In the end, this recent Missouri Supreme Court case highlights the fact that people have legal rights when it comes to being suspected of being under the influence while driving. If you are someone who was recently accused of drunk driving, and believe that your rights were compromised, make sure to talk with an attorney to see what defense options may be available.

Source: The Rolla Daily News, "Court rejects warrantless DWI blood test," Jan. 23, 2012