WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether motorists suspected of drunken driving who refuse to take a breath test can be forced to have their blood drawn at a hospital.
The ruling in a Missouri case, expected early next year, will help define the powers of the police and the rights of motorists when they are stopped for driving while intoxicated.
In most states, drivers must consent as a condition of obtaining a license that they will submit to a test of their breath, blood or urine if stopped on suspicion of drunken driving. Failing to do so can mean their driver's license will be revoked.
But judges in some states have balked at going further and forcing suspects to have their blood drawn against their will. Several state high courts have deemed this an "unreasonable search" in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear an appeal from Missouri prosecutors who argued that because alcohol in the body quickly dissipates, police need to act fast and require suspected drunken drivers to undergo a breath test or a blood test.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that a police officer must obtain a search warrant from a magistrate before compelling a suspect to undergo a blood test.
"In the middle of the night, it's not always easy to get a search warrant," said John Koester Jr., the Missouri prosecutor who brought the appeal.
In the case in question, Tyler McNeely was stopped for speeding in 2010. McNeely refused to provide a breath sample. The arresting officer then drove him to a hospital, where he ordered a lab technician to take a blood sample from McNeely.
The test showed an alcohol content of 0.154 percent, nearly double the legal limit of 0.08 percent.
A judge later agreed with McNeely that the forced blood test, without a warrant, violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
In another case, the Supreme Court upheld West Virginia's congressional voting boundaries, saying the population among districts can vary to protect incumbents from facing each other and to keep counties and cities intact.
In an unsigned opinion with no dissents, the justices upheld a bipartisan redistricting plan that kept the state's three congressional districts largely unchanged. A lower court had said the map violated the "one person, one vote" rule. The high court said that constitutional principle wasn't an absolute.
"Our cases leave little doubt that avoiding contests between incumbents and not splitting political subdivisions are valid, neutral state districting policies," the Supreme Court said.
Bloomberg News contributed to this report.
