Preview

Irac Case Brief State V. Mcneely

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
769 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Irac Case Brief State V. Mcneely
State v. McNeely 358 S.W.3d 65 MO. (2012)

Facts:
The defendant was stopped by a Missouri state highway patrolman for speeding and during this stop the trooper noticed that the defendant was displaying all the tell-tale signs of being intoxicated; blood shot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol on his breath. This stop then changed from being a speeding stop to a DWI investigation. The trooper had the defendant get out of his truck and perform standard field sobriety tests. The defendant did poorly on the test so the trooper arrested him for driving while intoxicated then, he asked him to take a breathalyzer which the defendant refused. The trooper then drove the defendant to the hospital to obtain a blood test to verify its alcohol content level. Once at the hospital the defendant refused the blood test but the trooper demanded it be done anyway, without securing a warrant, based on what he believed was a recent change in the law since time is critical to blood-alcohol content levels. The blood sample was analyzed and the defendant’s blood alcohol content was well over the legal limit. The trooper believed at the time that officers no longer needed to obtain warrants for nonconsensual blood test, due to a change in Missouri’s implied consent laws FN2. This belief was based on an article written by a traffic safety resource prosecutor. The defendant moved to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test as evidence, citing that the blood draw was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court sustained the motion. The Circuit Court, Cape Girardeau County and state appealed.

Issues
Did the State Trooper violate the defendants Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizures with the warrantless blood draw?
Is the natural dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence alone a sufficient necessity to dispense with the warrant requirement under the fourth amendment?

Rule
The

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Case Brief - R. v. Hufsky

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Appellant refused, and was informed by the officer he was being charged with regusal to provide a breath sample, and informed him of his rights…

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The question in the matter now is whether or not the statistical study was able to prove that McCleskey’s sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court held an…

    • 542 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Stop and Frisk

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns,…

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In an effort to maximize an individuals rights during search and seizures along with stop-and-frisks, the United States government has developed numerous laws and amendments. The Fourth Amendment states, The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched , and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. Constitution). This amendment was first used in the court system in the case of Terry vs. Ohio (1968). This case was the case that shaped the stop-and-frisk laws that are found in our country today. In 1942 legislators started to authorize stops-and-frisks on less than probable cause under the Uniform Arrest Act. This act gave an officer the right stop a person in public based upon reasonable ground to suspect that the person is committing has committed, or is about to commit a crime, and then search him for a dangerous weapon if the officer has reasonable ground to believe that he is in danger (Whitebread, 2000). In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect…

    • 372 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Court Memorandum of Law

    • 2016 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Was Cruz Estrada’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure violated when Officer Green grabbed Cruz Estrada’s purse from her shoulder and searched it without her consent, and can the evidence found in Cruz Estrada’s purse be suppressed due to the search being impermissible?…

    • 2016 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Fourth Amendment provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. Its purpose to ensure each search or seizure be cleared in advance by a judge and that to get a warrant the government must show “probable cause”, a certain level of suspicion of criminal activity, to justify the search or seizure.…

    • 861 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states: Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause. This amendment impacts law enforcement because police need a warrant to make arrests and searches. This is not applicable if the officer has first-hand knowledge of an event and the evidence is likely to be destroyed or the subject will abscond if time is taken to get a warrant. If a warrantless search is made by the police that should have been made only after a warrant was issued, then all knowledge gained by that evidence is not allowed in testimony.…

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The 4th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.…

    • 511 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Exclusionary Rule

    • 624 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The interpretation and execution of the Fourth amendment in the courtroom however, is decided by the Supreme Court in an attempt to find a fair balance between individual and community interests. The exclusionary rule for example, is a Supreme Court precedent that holds police departments responsible for seizing incriminating information according to constitutional specifications of due process, or the information will not be allowed as evidence in a criminal trial. The question that arises in turn, is whether the exclusionary rule has handcuffed the abilities to effectively protect the community by the police, or if it has actually resulted in a positive police reform which needs to be expanded upon.…

    • 624 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On 4th Amendment

    • 1106 Words
    • 5 Pages

    “An understanding of the antecedent history of the Fourth Amendment is therefore important for an evaluation of the subsequent development of that amendment through judicial construction. History alone cannot, of course, provide the Supreme Court with clear guidance on all search and seizure questions up for decision, if only because the historical record is not always as clear as we should like it to be, and also because some issues raised under the Fourth Amendment such as the constitutionality of wiretapping or compulsory blood tests in criminal cases are of recent origin and could have been anticipated by those who drafted the Bill of Rights.” (p. 19 Landynski…

    • 1106 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Arizona vs Grant

    • 1130 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The U.S. Supreme Court limits how police searches a vehicle after Arizona v. Grant. April 21, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court adds new limits on how law enforcement officer can search the passenger compartments of a vehicle. Due to this ruling, police officers require having either evidence of a crime for which the suspect is being arrested for, or the officers are completing a weapons check that could be within reach of the suspect. Arizona v. Grant makes important changes within the Fourth Amendment. After New York v. Belton, the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed officers to search the passenger compartment of any vehicle when the person was being arrested that was driving or was a passenger in without a warrant. Belton’s justification was the fact that a person can constitutionally be search for weapons and any other evidence, and further that any officer can search the immediate area of control for weapons or any other evidence. Since the new ruling with Arizona v. Grant overturns the ruling of New York v. Belton, and sets a new standard for what is allowed during a search in a car related arrested.…

    • 1130 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In the early morning hours of September 18, 1992, a police officer employed by defendant Town of Cheektowaga pulled over an automobile owned by plaintiff's decedent, Jacqueline Walsh. An acquaintance of Walsh was driving and she was a passenger. As the result of the traffic stop, the acquaintance was placed under arrest for driving while intoxicated. Based upon his observations of Walsh, the officer determined that Walsh was also intoxicated and unable to drive safely. The officer testified that he offered to call a cab or give Walsh a ride to any destination she chose, but Walsh…

    • 522 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Arizona police took him to the police station and interrogated him for two hours. After the interrogation, Mr. Miranda had confessed to the crimes, and provided officers with a written confession. Language at the top of the written confession stated that the confession was given freely and voluntarily without any threats or promises. In addition, the language stated that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his legal rights. However, Mr. Miranda was not advised that he could remain silent and have an attorney present at the interrogation. Subsequently, the statement was entered into evidence at trial, and Mr. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to prison.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I find that the evidence would still be valid based on the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. The good faith exception states “that If officers had a reasonable, good-faith belief that they were acting per legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible” (Busby, 2009). The good faith exception was established by a 6-3 U.S Supreme court decision in the United States v. Leon 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The majority opinion, as written by Bryon R. White, was that the exclusionary rule was established to deter law enforcements violations of the 4th amendment warranting against illegal search and seizure. Therefore “reliable physical evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate” did not violate the exclusionary rule and the evidence was to be admitted (Kaye, 2011). The good faith exception was reviewed and expanded in Arizona v. Evans 514 U.S. 1 (1995), a case that I feel directly correlates to my decision reference the admissibility of the evidence in the example given. In Arizona v. Evans an officer conducts a legal traffic stop. Upon running the driver’s license the officer discovers an outstanding warrant for arrest. Pursuant to the arrest a search was conduct and marijuana discovered. When charging Evan’s when possession the officers discovered that the warrant had been quashed. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that this was not a violation of Evan’s 4th Amendment rights since the evidence, though obtained based on an illegal warrant, was legal based on the good faith…

    • 425 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays