Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Missouri v. McNeely , holding that officers must generally get a warrant before they forcibly draw someone's blood during a DUI investigation. The language of the court's decision, however, has created confusion about what situations truly require that a warrant be obtained before a blood test can be forced. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a Colorado case where there was a forced blood test that allegedly showed the driver's blood alcohol content was approximately three times the legal limit. The driver was unconscious at the time his blood was drawn and so was unable to consent to the test.
Several other states have also asked the high court to review this issue and make a clearer ruling. The Supreme Court's decision - if the court does agree to hear the case - will have significant national impact. DUI cases are often based upon the results of blood tests - many of which are performed without unqualified consent. A Supreme Court ruling that these warrantless draws are unlawful would mean that the results of those tests could not be used to help prove a person's guilt.