The Supreme Court of Missouri sided in favor of the initial judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County (Missouri) against the subsequent appeal of the State of Missouri in the case of Tyler G. McNeely, affirming that Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the blood from the defendant was taken by Missouri state patrolmen. No exceptional exigencies were relevant in what was determined to be a standard DWI infraction by the defendant. This judgment is in accord with the rule of law.
The argument of the State of Missouri contested that since blood alcohol levels dissipate after drinking has stopped, a blood test was thus necessary according to the exigency. The Court’s Decision to realize this is not a satisfactory exigency intends that neither is this exigency covered by current law regarding the investigation of DWI cases nor that the course of action pursued by the state patrol adhered to constitutional law. Authority is consistent with the law and since no law justified the conduct of the appellant, there is no legal basis for the actions taken by the state patrol.
Precedent also exists in favor of the respondent, i.e., Schmerber vs. California, according to which the decision reached by the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognize the legitimacy that natural dissipation of blood-alcohol constitutes an exigency.
The individual interest is defended by the U.S. Constitution and the concept of State interest is not relevant in light of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the decision in favour of McNeely is accurate according to the rule of law and legal precedent.