The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Missouri v. McNeeley, No. 11-1425. At issue was whether or not the police must obtain a warrant prior to drawing blood from a person suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol. McNeeley was pulled over for speeding and failed the field sobriety test. After refusing the breathalyzer, McNeeley was taken to the hospital where after refusing to allow his blood to be drawn, had the blood forcibly taken from his body. The trial court threw out the evidence from the blood test as being an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The state appealed to the US Supreme Court asking that it declare that there is no need to obtain a warrant to draw blood. (Current law permits the drawing of blood without consent and without a warrant when alcohol is suspected after an accident with injuries). The state is asking for an extension of this rule to apply even when there is not an “exigent circumstance” such as an injury accident.
The state’s request is an example of everything that is wrong with our government today. I think reasonable people would agree that sticking a needle into your arm and forcibly withdrawing blood to be evaluated with the results being used against you in a criminal trial is not only an unreasonable seizure but would also violated your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. When you read dystopian novels popular in the early 1900s and again today, the cause the dystopianism is always government intrusion on individual’s rights.[i]
Although I do not agree that there are any circumstances which should permit the government to forcibly take your bodily fluids to be used against you in a criminal prosecution without first obtaining a warrant, I am especially concerned that a state would feel comfortable asking to be able to conduct this type of activity without regard to the Constitution. As our rights continue to erode through the unchecked increase in government intrusion into our lives, we have to ask ourselves, when will enough be enough?
[i] E.g., Iron Hall, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, 1984 and more recently, The Handmaid’s Tale, Orxy & Crake, and the Hunger Games.
In the eyes of the law 
This is a case that really caught my attention when you discussed it breifly in class. In my criminal procedure class, we recently had a debate on whether it was constitutional for an officer to conduct a search and seizure with out a warrant by going through a man’s garbage can. I believe I was the only one in my class discussion that voted against the idea. I thought that because the garbage was on the man’s premise it constituted as an illegal search against the fourth ammendment. Knowing that, I am obviously against the idea of anyone being able to forcibly draw blood from another individual. The body is one of the most personal things there is, and for an officer to be able to stick a needle, foricbly, into someone’s body to extract fluid of any kind makes me nauseous. It sickens me that the state would even request such a thing. I feel that the government is getting more and more intrusive as they years go by. It is hard to fathom what will come next.
This is an interesting argument that I have with friends of mine quiet often. I agree, this is one of the problems with government. This clearly is a violating of the fifth amendment since allowing a blood sample to be forcible taken then used in prosecution is a slippery slope. If the government finds it ok to violate rights such as your rights against self incrimination then what is to say that they wont try to take away other constitutionally granted rights? Are we slowly heading towards a society that is controlled by government in every way? I know someone who had been sedated to have his blood forcibly drawn during a DUI check. He refused to allow officers to draw his blood so they forcibly gave him sedatives then proceeded to draw his blood while he was unconscious! This is both ridiculous and scary! I recently stumbled across a video of a man trying to simply drive through Homeland Security check points and was given an immense amount of grief simply because he choose not to answer the facilitator’s questions regarding his citizenship. These checks were un-warranted and unnecessary and he was under no obligation legally to answer their questions. He is simply exercising his constitutional rights. So many of my friends had a huge problem with this “uncooprative asshole,” however, he is trying to prove a point here. People don’t know their constitutional rights and because of this blindly allow their rights to be violated as a result. The same friends commenting like this and blasting this man for exercising his rights also say “this is the problem with Americans.” Statements and ignorance like this is infuriating. The problem isn’t people standing up for their rights, the problem is people NOT standing up for them. However, how can you possible defend something you have no clue exists? This is just like the issue of drawing blood for DUI’s. Both violate fundamental constitutional rights. Explain to me how upholding and defending your rights is “the problem.” Just because an “official” makes it feel like you must comply, that is not always the case. If people don’t know their rights then how could they possibly protect themselves from being punished unjustly as a direct result of these violations? Interesting to think about. Below is a link to the video I watched, it was quiet impowering for me to watch and helped me realize even more that Americans are protected under the constitution.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef3_1361978936
First of all, I believe in the protection of our privacy rights and a forced blood drawing goes against that. I believe in the absolute of our privacy rights. However, I am a fan of the police using their power in order to get drunk drivers convicted. I will play devil’s advocate and talk about the good point of the forced blood drawing. There has to be a little leeway of invading the privacy of someone if it meant it could save someone’s life. There has been too many deaths caused my drunk driving and it frustrates me when I hear about a drunk driver killing or harming someone and yet they are still in good shape.That reminds me of tan article where a rich man tried to adopted his girlfriend so that he would not lose his assets for killing a pedestrian when he was driving drunk.
I recall the day we spoke of this in class, it was intriguing. Although drunk driving is widely looked down upon, I feel this is a violation of one’s natural rights. If the government did nothing else and they decided they can legally search people’s assets and homes without probable cause or a warrant, they should at least respect someone’s right to their body.The physical person’s right to the privacy of their own body is one area of the law that nobody should infringe upon and it’s appalling that they would do so and then use that evidence against someone in a court of law.
Driving while under the influence is a heinous act; indeed, people who drive while impaired have caused many innocent deaths and thousands of dollars in damages. Therefore, I can definitely understand why some would be in agreement with the state in the case of Missouri v. McNeeley that a warrant should not be necessary in taking bodily fluids without consent even when there is no “exigent circumstance.” Although on the surface allowing this may seem rational because of the atrocities that have been committed by drunk drivers, in the end, the violation of both the fourth and fifth amendments to the constitution is unacceptable. It could be argued that, of course, an individual suspected of driving under the influence is going to lie; for that reason, a blood test must be forced so that the person does not escape consequences. Nevertheless, by permitting the state these types of violations against individual’s constitutional rights, a dystopian society is, without a doubt, in the making. In short, sanctioning this encroachment on a citizen’s rights could be a first step in sacrificing the freedoms and rights that most Americans cherish.