[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 92°F  
Heat Advisory
Friday, Aug. 22, 2014

High court to review Cape Girardeau County drunken driving case

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that originated in Cape Girardeau County -- perhaps for the first time ever -- in which the nation's highest court will weigh whether law enforcement must obtain a warrant before ordering a blood test on unwilling drunken-driving suspects.

The court announced Tuesday that it will review six new cases, including the local one that began in 2010 when a Jackson man was charged with driving while intoxicated after a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper had blood drawn against the suspect's will.

At least three local lawyers will be in Washington, D.C., in January when the nine justices hear oral arguments, including prosecutors Morley Swingle and Jack Koester, as well as defense attorney Steve Wilson.

Swingle said Tuesday that those in his office, which filed the appeal, were ecstatic when they found out the news Tuesday.

"We will be part of clarifying an important issue in search and seizure law nationwide," Swingle said. "And it is the dream of every law student who studied their decisions to argue a case before the Supreme Court."

It won't be Swingle, however, who will be arguing before the court. That distinction, he said, will go to assistant prosecutor Jack Koester, who handled the case from the start. It was Koester, Swingle said, that prosecuted the case and then made arguments before the appellate courts and finally the Missouri Supreme Court.

Koester, 35, also wrote the petition to the Supreme Court, called a certiorari, Latin for "to become more fully informed." But the assistant prosecutor said he never really expected that the case would be among the few that the court would accept. Last year, for example, 8,000 petitions were filed and the court granted just 75 -- fewer than 1 percent.

At issue in the case is whether police can take blood without a search warrant under the "exigent circumstances exception" to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The court will weigh whether the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream creates such a "special fact" that amounts, in the prosecution's estimation, to allowing evidence to be destroyed.

In the local case, Tyler McNeely had a blood alcohol content that measured 0.154, nearly twice the legal limit, roughly 25 minutes after he was pulled over. Judge Benjamin Lewis, however, suppressed the results of the blood test, ruling that the trooper should have gotten a search warrant from a judge.

The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the trooper did not need a warrant. But, because the courts across the country have been so evenly split, the case was still transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court, which reversed the appellate court's decision. The state's high court ruled with McNeely that the blood sample should be suppressed saying that there were no "special facts" or "exigent circumstances" to justify obtaining the sample in a hurry.

Koester will be arguing to the court that law enforcement did not need a warrant when it took a blood test from McNeely. Koester said he believes and will argue the dissipation of alcohol in the blood does qualify as a special circumstance.

McNeely's lawyer, Wilson, a criminal defense attorney with three decades experience, will also be among the lawyers before the court. He said his client wasn't as excited as some seem to be. If the Missouri Supreme Court's decision is reversed, his client may have to face trial again.

"He's just ready for it to be over," Wilson said.

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union, which now represents McNeely, said the prosecution's theory is not scientifically sound and, in McNeely's case, there were no special circumstances, such as an accident or an emergency.

"So there's no need to discard the Fourth Amendment," said Tony Rothert, the ACLU's eastern district's legal director. "If the ruling is overturned, it would make the Fourth Amendment mean less and it would mean less than the founders intended."

Still unclear Tuesday afternoon was whether a Cape Girardeau County case had ever made it to the U.S. Supreme Court in the past. Swingle said it hadn't happened in his many years in office. Others within the legal community weren't sure, but couldn't remember it happening before.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh also could not recall such a case. But the former justice for the Missouri Supreme Court said this case is a remarkable one in light of the way the courts have been divided.

"It's a very interesting legal question, even though a somewhat esoteric one," Limbaugh said.



Pertinent address:

200 Court St., Jackson, MO

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Mr Swingle, who determines what is reasonable and unreasonable? You? The police officer?

Do you find it reasonable to take a needle and draw someone's blood without their consent? I find that rather intrusive and should not be subject to the you or the officer's discretion.

You are not the judge and jury.

-- Posted by semorider on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 3:05 PM

Then do not drink and drive. Plain and simple and you do not have to worry about a needle

-- Posted by cartman89 on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 5:25 PM

Complain! Complain! Complain! If some stupid drunk driver ran head-on into your wife and kids and killed them, I'm certain that you would want the Prosecuting Attorney, Police, and the court system to do everything in their power to put that person away and if they didn't do that, you would also complain about that too!!!!!!!!

One simple solution, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DRINK, DO NOT DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That simple!!!

-- Posted by arrestthem on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 6:21 PM

If the police can't search your house without a warrant, they shouldn't be able to stick a needle in your arm without one. Even drunk drivers have rights and deserve to be protected against unreasonable searches. The fact the liver removes ethanol from the blood is not, by itself, an exigent circumstance.

What's more, by the time the police are threatening an involuntary blood draw, the driver will already have a "refusal" on their record and will lose their license for longer than they would with a conviction.

-- Posted by ScaliaFan on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 7:46 PM

What other instances could the police draw blood against one's will? What if a city ordinance made it illegal to consume soft drinks with sugar, and government officials needed to draw blood to prove a case? What if a government health care plan made it illegal to use certain medications without the government's permission, and some bureaucrat needed to draw your blood to prove a case? Drunken driving, of course, is a very serious and potentially fatal thing to do. But drunk driving can be proven by other means, such as visual observation of the officer. And the guy is losing his license anyway by refusing the breath test. I believe the Supreme Court will overwhelmingly rule this was an unreasonable search in this instance.

-- Posted by tom on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 11:02 PM

Absolutely! Seized his blood and then searched it without warrant. Sorry folks, civil liberties such as the Constitutional right that protects against warrantless searches cannot and should not be infringed upon. Unfortunately alcohol is hear to stay and so are people who make bad choices while consuming it. This will not be going away in my lifetime. It saddens me deeply to see civil liberties be put asside to satisfy many who would throw the Bill of Rights right out the window.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Sep 26, 2012, at 7:09 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Map of pertinent addresses
Related subjects