The Supreme Court is examining a 2010 case out of Missouri where a man's blood was taken without his consent. Take a NEWS POLL.
View full size
The Supreme Court will decide whether it is a violation of constitutional rights for police to take a blood sample without a warrant when they suspect drunken driving.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a Missouri drunken-driving case that has pushed the debate about ordering DUI blood tests to the forefront of national conversation.
But Pennsylvania's stringent search and seizure laws likely mean that the commonwealth won't see any drastic changes -- no matter which way the court rules on the topic.
Last week, the country’s highest court heard arguments about whether Missouri man Tyler McNeely’s constitutional rights were violated when authorities took a sample of his blood without a warrant after he’d declined to provide the evidence.
McNeely failed field sobriety tests during a October 2010 traffic stop and declined to provide a blood sample for what could be his fourth drunken-driving conviction. A sample taken at a local hospital showed McNeely’s BAC was 0.15 — well above the 0.08 limit in the state.
But that evidence, taken without a court order, violated McNeely’s constitutional rights, his attorney argues. A ruling is expected this summer.
In Pennsylvania, the laws protecting residents from warrantless searches are stronger than the federal ones. That’s why during suppression hearings in the commonwealth, attorneys cite state statutes rather than the Fourth Amendment, said attorney Jim Burke.
And that’s also why Burke, and many others, doesn't expect the Supreme Court ruling to mean all that much in the Keystone State.
“I can’t read tea leaves ... but I think the court’s more libertarian in some regards and I think this won’t past muster,” Burke said. “But either way, I don’t think you’ll see it affect us in Pennsylvania.”
No fishing expeditions
An officer who suspects a driver is intoxicated can request that person voluntarily provide a blood sample, according to state law. Penalties, including license suspension, will kick in if a driver refuses to comply, acting as incentives for cooperation.
Once a driver refuses to surrender a blood sample, authorities must convince a magisterial district judge that a warrant is necessary. Warrant in hand, the police can gain access to a blood sample.
But a district judge isn’t necessarily going to sign off on a warrant for blood unless the case is a serious one — a repeat offender perhaps or a crash that injured or killed another motorist.
George Geisler, law enforcement services conductor with the Pennsylvania DUI Association, said there has to be sufficient evidence to require a blood draw.
“You must have reasonable grounds,” Geisler said. “You can’t just be going on a fishing expedition.”
Geisler said there are plenty of opportunities for police to get a judge to sign off on a warrant with merit — especially with today’s technology.
“You can always get an on-call judge, and with technology increasing, it’s only getting easier,” Geisler said.
Burke would agree — there’s no excuse not to get a warrant.
“I just have a tough time in this age seeing that we couldn't comply with the law as it is,” Burke said.
The idea of warrantless blood draws, no matter how unlikely, is a disturbing one for defense attorney Erv McLain.
“It’s chilling, quite frankly,” McLain said. “If they take you to the DUI center, you have the right to refuse. Why is it that if you go into a hospital, you don’t have a right to refuse? There is no difference.
“The constitutional rights of all of us have been eroded dramatically through the DUI legislation.”
Law deemed fair, even by prosecutor
When Lopatcong Township resident John P. Heaney III killed two motorcyclists after crashing into a caravan of riders just outside of Bangor on July 1, 2011, he was under the influence of alcohol, police say, according to breath tests taken at the scene.
Heaney’s BAC was 0.11 — slightly higher than the legal limit of 0.08, according to the breath tests. But the inaccuracy of such testing meant those results were not provided to a jury during Heaney’s vehicular homicide trial.
The former New Jersey cop would not submit to the most accurate form of testing, refusing to provide a blood sample. By the time authorities got the paperwork in order to get a warrant for a blood draw, five hours had passed, according to Northampton County Assistant District Attorney Bill Blake.
“Too much time had passed and the alcohol had probably already dissipated in his blood,” Blake said.
Heaney was cleared of the most serious charges in the case in early December, including vehicular homicide while DUI, but was convicted of drunken driving, recklessly endangering another person and involuntary manslaughter. He’s due in court today for sentencing.
Despite such challenges, Blake said, he believes the law as it stands is fair, allowing a significant degree of protection but giving authorities the chance to go after what they need to.
“Trying to look at it from a citizen’s point of view, and not a prosecutorial one, I think the law is set up in a very good way,” Blake said. “It provides a lot of protection.”
