The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on whether the police can seize a blood sample of an accused DUI driver based upon exigent circumstances. In Missouri v McNeeley , a police officer took an accused's blood sample without a search warrant. The government's theory was there was an exigent circumstances for the seizure without a warrant because the concentration of alcohol dissipates over time. The Missouri Supreme Court held the seizure of the blood sample was an unconstitutional search. The U.S.Supreme Court will hear this case in the fall.
The Missouri case is very important to those charged with a drunk driving case here in Tennessee. If the court reverses the Missouri Supreme Court's decision , police officers will be granted the power to take any citizens blood sample without their consent or without a search warrant. Currently , a citizen is allowed to refuse to submit to a breath or blood alcohol test.
it is important on another ground as well. Tennessee currently allows for a forced blood draw on those charged with a second offense DUI or higher. There is no search warrant requirement to seize the blood sample. You must have only been convicted of a prior DUI. I am unaware if Tennessee's forced blood draw has been challenged yet. It is my belief that the law will be declared unconstitutional at some point. The concept of Tennessee's forced blood draw is not before the Supreme Court.
The real question is whether the courts are going to keep allowing unfettered police intrusion into the lives of the citizens accused of a crime. Tracking someone on a GPS is allowed. Cell phones are not private. Where does the erosion of the Fourth Amendment stop ? It must stop with this series of cases. Sure everyone is against drunk driving . But , at what price do we sacrifice our constitutional protections ?