MBE Rules · Criminal Procedure
Blood and Breath Tests
McNeely / Birchfield / Mitchell
The rule
Alcohol dissipation is not a per se exigency for warrantless blood draws; breath tests are valid incident to DUI arrest but blood tests need a warrant or consent, and unconsciousness usually supplies exigency.
In plain English
In criminal procedure, while breath tests can be administered without a warrant during a DUI arrest, blood tests generally require a warrant or the driver's consent. The fact that alcohol dissipates in the bloodstream does not automatically justify a warrantless blood draw, but if a driver is unconscious, that may create an exigent circumstance allowing for a blood test without a warrant.
Worked example
A police officer arrests a driver for DUI and administers a breath test on the scene, which shows a high blood alcohol concentration. The officer then attempts to draw blood for further testing but does not have a warrant or consent. The driver becomes unconscious before a warrant can be obtained, allowing the officer to conduct the blood draw without violating the Fourth Amendment. The blood test results are admissible in court.
Memory hook
Breath tests are quick and easy; blood tests need a warrant unless you're out cold!
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students assume that the mere presence of alcohol in the bloodstream justifies a warrantless blood draw, which is incorrect. Students might also confuse the rules regarding breath and blood tests under exigent circumstances.
How examiners test it
Questions often involve fact patterns where a DUI arrest is made, and students must determine whether a warrant was needed for a blood test or if exigent circumstances apply. Look for details about the driver's state of consciousness and the timing of the tests.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.