Under Ohio law, exigent circumstances can include destruction of evidence, so in some cases a forced blood draw without a warrant may be legal if the officers cannot obtain the search warrant before the BAC level decreases. If there are exigent circumstances and no time to get a warrant.The police officer obtains a search warrant from a judge, or.What are the current Ohio laws for BAC testing?Ĭurrently, police officers can force Ohio drivers arrested for drunk driving to provide a blood sample even if they refuse to submit to a breath test. The ruling says that the natural metabolism of alcohol over time does not always amount to exigent circumstances, but officers should consider the necessity of a search warrant on a case-by-case basis. McNeely left the exigent circumstances in a drunk driving case open to interpretation. However, it does allow police to conduct testing without a warrant under “exigent circumstances.” The expected decision would not amend that ruling but instead supplement it to outline what exactly constitutes “exigent circumstances,” when a search warrant should be required, and whether drivers can face criminal charges for refusing.Īll Americans have the right to avoid unwarranted searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment except under specific conditions, known as exigent circumstances. In its decision, the Court ruled that police should obtain a search warrant before BAC testing if there is enough time. The SCOTUS ruled on a similar case, Missouri v. What can we expect from the Supreme Court ruling? If SCOTUS rules that forced BAC testing without a search warrant is unconstitutional, the decision would force changes in Ohio law. These cases relate to whether or not a search warrant is necessary before forcing someone to take a breath or blood test to measure his breath or blood alcohol content (BAC). On December 11, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agreed to hear several cases that could change drunk driving investigations nationwide.

000 kelly driver improvement