overruling the two major decisions of the Supreme Court over the last 4 years.

Didn't one of those decisions concern exigent circumstances? How is that relevant to this case? It isn't. So why are you citing it?

Didn't one of those decisions concern exigent circumstances?

Yes, it did. And thank you for asking.

But it downplayed the use of exigent circumstances which was routinely offered as an excuse for warrantless blood draws. I think it was Sotomayor who wrote the majority opinion on that particular point.

So that hurts your entire argument.

So far. I'll mark your "high road" post for reference later.

What for? She's completely within her legal and moral right to sue and use the money she wins for her own personal enjoyment (though it wouldn't surprise me if she instead donates it to a real charity).

What for?

So I can cite your stupid "She's taking the high road to make the world a better place" and rub it in your f**king face.

"(though it wouldn't surprise me if she instead donates it to a real charity)."

I'll mark this one for later reference also. What for? Same reason.

But it downplayed the use of exigent circumstances

Did law enforcement cite exigent circumstances is this case as their legal reason to draw blood? No. Yet you reference a USSC ruling on exigent circumstances. Why? Other than you're an idiot.

Surely it didn't run the agitator or the wringer directly.

You've got a rotating power source, why go electric? Belt drive from the engine crankshaft to the agitator/wringer gearbox and pump. I was like maybe 4 or 5 years old at the time we had that washing machine in the mid '50s. I remember the side loading electric one we had later much better. It had a door on top to add the detergent, and you could see the side of the tub turning down there. WoooHoo!!!

This is a vintage 1920's Maytag washing machine with wringer powered by a 2-stroke engine. In rural America where there was no electricity, this made cleaning clothes a lot easier that it had been before. Another Maytag engine is running on the ground, and a "hit and miss" engine is running next to the washer. Taken August 27, 2011 at the Shelby Iron Works Engine Show in Shelby, Alabama (near Birmingham).

So I can cite your stupid "She's taking the high road to make the world a better place" and rub it in your f**king face.

hahahaa

You are so cute when you're angry.

I didn't say she wouldn't sue. I said she was at least hesitant to sue.

If she does decide to sue, then it won't invalidate that observation.

I'll mark this one for later reference also. What for? Same reason.

I said "it wouldn't surprise me" if she donated any damage awards to charity. She may decide instead to throw a big party for all her medical friends featuring a cop pinata that strongly resembles Payne. If so, more power too her.

I didn't say she wouldn't sue. I said she was at least hesitant to sue.

And therein lies the nobility.

[Pinguinite #23] In the case of Wubbels, it appears she is a TRUE public servant and at least hesitant to file any civil lawsuit over the event, instead choosing the high road of using her experience to make the world a better place.

I agree with that assessment, but it may inevitably go beyond Wubbels to a class action. The extent of the violation is not yet clear. The FBI was not called in for help with one misdeed by one cop.

[misterwhite #25] He was acting under departmental procedure and the State of Utah law as written. She obstructed and then resisted arrest. This is insane.

He was acting unlawfully in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent which had struck down, as null and void, all State laws and regulations or procedures repugnant to that precedential opinion.

The officer's actions were unconstitutional and resort to null and void law, regulations or procedures offer no help to make his actions lawful.

A directive from his lieutenant may mitigate his problems, but amplify the problems of the municipality of Salt Lake City.

In addition, the officer's demands appear clearly in violation of HIIPA laws. If this has occured in multiple past cases, SLC could be facing a class action civil suit, appeals of criminal convictions, and more criminal complaints.

Recall that TWO officers have been placed on administrative leave. Officer Payne did the arrest. Lieutenant Anonymous apparently called for the arrest.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/02/utah-cop-put-on-leave-after-bodycam-video-shows-him-cuffing-nurse-for-refusing-to-draw-blood-on-unconscious-patient.html

2nd Utah police officer put on administrative duty over nurse arrest

September 2, 2017
Fox News

Another cop was placed on administrative leave with pay in the handcuffing of a Utah hospital nurse who refused to take blood from an unconscious patient.

Salt Lake City’s mayor and police chief apologized Friday to Utah Hospital nurse, Alex Wubbels, who is seen in body cam video screaming “help me” after Detective Jeff Payne handcuffed and dragged her out of the hospital over her refusal to take the blood sample from the patient, a car-crash victim, on July 26.

The video has caused outrage since it was released Thursday.

Payne was placed on paid leave and prosecutors on Friday announced a a criminal investigation.

Police said Friday a second officer was also placed on paid leave. That officer has not been formally identified, but officials have said they also were reviewing the conduct of Payne's boss, a lieutenant who reportedly called for the arrest if Wubbels kept interfering.

[snip]

But if the trail leads to a conspiracy to deprive the trucker and/or nurse of their civil rights, they couldn't just refer this to the Utah AG. And the Logan PD and Utah highway patrol are mostly beyond their jurisdiction as SLC prosecutors. So the FBI would be needed for a scenario like that.

The FBI investigates. The Justice Department prosecutes.

Salt Lake City Lieutenant James Tracy, who reportedly called for the arrest was placed on administrative leave, in addition to Salt Lake City Detective Jeff Payne. It was the Salt Lake City mayor who apologized, not Logan. The Logan PD is not on the hook for this, and they are not volunteering to climb on board.

Logan called the SLC police to request a blood draw. Logan did not request or demand that any law be disregarded in the taking. That is Logan's story and they are sticking with it. SLC owns this mess.

The nurse showed the Salt Lake City detective a copy of the agreement between the police and the hospital that such involuntary blood draws would not happen. Based on the existence of such an agreement, I will bet a cookie that this has happened before, and the agreement was used to avoid legal catastrophe. It appears that Lt. Troglodyte and Deputy Dawg did not get the word, or they are just free thinkers with a badge.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/06/mayor-biskuski-police-officer-who-arrested-nurse-should-immediately-have-been-put-on-leave-br/

Logan police didn’t push for blood draw, chief tells CNN after SLC mayor rebukes handling of officer’s leave

By Stephen Hunt and Luke Ramseth
St. Louis Tribune
September 7, 2017

The police officer who arrested a University Hospital nurse during a July 26 dispute over getting blood from a patient should immediately have been placed on administrative leave, according to Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski.

Instead, Salt Lake City police Detective Jeff Payne was allowed to stay on the job until Sept. 1, a day after the nurse’s attorney publicly released police body camera footage of the arrest. Another officer — believed to be Payne’s watch commander, Lt. James Tracy — was placed on leave the same day.

[...]

Logan Police Chief Gary Jensen told CNN on Wednesday that Payne had called a Logan detective to say that he was having a tough time getting the blood. According to Jensen, the detective told Payne not to worry about it, because Logan could get the blood through other means.

“He didn’t tell him you must cease and desist; he simply said, ‘Don’t worry about it, we’ll go another way,’” Jensen said in the CNN interview. “I just don’t believe [Payne’s] actions were in the best interest of the patient, the nurses or law enforcement, quite frankly. He could have just packed up and gone home.”

[snip]

Recall that TWO officers have been placed on administrative leave (with pay).

Isn't that standard in these types of cases? Or do you read something sinister into it?

"The FBI was not called in for help with one misdeed by one cop."

It's possible they're simply investigating a federal violation of her civil rights. Or it could be Russian interference.

Isn't that standard in these types of cases? Or do you read something sinister into it?

Did you happen to notice one is a Lieutenant? Read: Salt Lake City liability.

They could be investigating Keckistan, but I doubt it.

Logan Police Chief Gary Jensen told CNN on Wednesday that Payne had called a Logan detective to say that he was having a tough time getting the blood. According to Jensen, the detective told Payne not to worry about it, because Logan could get the blood through other means.

“He didn’t tell him you must cease and desist; he simply said, ‘Don’t worry about it, we’ll go another way,’” Jensen said in the CNN interview. “I just don’t believe [Payne’s] actions were in the best interest of the patient, the nurses or law enforcement, quite frankly. He could have just packed up and gone home.”

Damn, that's cold.     : )

They do have incentive to try to keep their hands clean.

You have to wonder if they did eventually find a way to get the blood via other means.

You have to wonder if they did eventually find a way to get the blood via other means.

I wonder if there is any other legal means to do it. Even if there were a medical draw, I don't see how he legally gets it without a warrant.

Did you happen to notice one is a Lieutenant? Read: Salt Lake City liability.

So they BOTH thought the law and police department policy were on their side. WTF is going on here? Why are these two being blamed for acting within accepted protocol?

FIRE THEM!! TAKE THEIR HOUSES!! THROW THEM IN JAIL!!

That's what I'm reading.

FIRE THEM!! TAKE THEIR HOUSES!! THROW THEM IN JAIL!!

Don't get hysterical, misterwhite. We need you performing your otherwise cool, collected unmistakable love for the UBER AMRERICA POLICE STATE! It is what you do best to ensure I have lots of laffs.

We need you performing your otherwise cool, collected unmistakable love for the UBER AMRERICA POLICE STATE!

Yeah. Sorry. I know you're all counting on me.

I know you're all counting on me.

Your apologies are accepted.

Listen to me, it is important; this is critical stuff here and within the chit-chat channel that I am about reveal to you. If it weren't for you consistently begging for a POLICE STATE w/ UBER CAPABILITIES TO FUCK AMERICA UP EVEN MORE, there would be no point of viewing your posts.

So they BOTH thought the law and police department policy were on their side. WTF is going on here? Why are these two being blamed for acting within accepted protocol?

A jackass in power "authorizing" an unconstitutional act does not make it constitutional. It just leads to a criminal act. Deputy Dawg can always say he was just following orders, as that excuse has always worked well in the past.

If SLC wants to accept that unconstitutional searches were accepted protocol, then they should get ready to open their wallet very wide.

A jackass in power "authorizing" an unconstitutional act does not make it constitutional.

Then shouldn't that jackass be blamed?

And we're not talking about some isolated "act". This is Utah law and police department policy that's been used many times before without a problem.

"If SLC wants to accept that unconstitutional searches were accepted protocol, then they should get ready to open their wallet very wide."

Why SLC? Why not the State of Utah? It's their statute.

Why SLC? hy not the State of Utah? It's their statute.

The Utah statute is legal and constitutional.

The brain dead misreading of the statute by the SLC lieutenant, the detective, and yourself yields an unconstitutional, criminal result. And, of course, massive liability for Salt Lake City who employs those two blockheads. SLC should consider hiring the nurse to babysit them.

The brain dead misreading of the statute by the SLC lieutenant, the detective, and yourself yields an unconstitutional, criminal result. And, of course, massive liability for Salt Lake City who employs those two blockheads. SLC should consider hiring the nurse to babysit them.

You have to wonder why they went so far over the line for an accident that occurred in Logan, UT, 81 miles outside their jurisdiction.

Their only involvement was trying to get blood for Logan (or UHP in my conspiracy theory).

I can't really imagine how or why they went so far in this case when it wasn't even their case to begin with.

:You have to wonder why they went so far over the line for an accident that occurred in Logan ..."

You still gnawin' on that old bone?

The Utah statute is legal and constitutional.

The one that said they can draw blood from an unconscious driver?

Why do you almost always side with evil?

I am citing the law which explains the behavior. Nothing evil in that.

You, on the other hand, have contributed zilch to these threads. Your posts consist of name-calling, lies, innuendos and incoherent ramblings.

Look around in your head and find two functioning brain cells to rub together and create a relevant thought. If you can't find them -- which, obviously you haven't so far -- stop embarrassing yourself with your stupid posts.

Besides Chan and tooconservative and even Vic alreadyndestroyed you. You're just to stuck where you are to admit or realize it.

You still gnawin' on that old bone?

You mean the old bone that an SLC detective and his supervisor violated a nurse's rights and placed her under false arrest while trying to violate an accident victim's 4th Amendment rights, all for an accident that didn't occur in SLC jurisdiction and when the there was no probable cause that the victim was an impaired driver?

Yes, that "old bone" is going to jump up and bite an SLC detective and his supervisor in the ass, real hard.

You mean the old bone that an SLC detective and his supervisor violated a nurse's rights and placed her under false arrest while trying to violate an accident victim's 4th Amendment rights, all for an accident that didn't occur in SLC jurisdiction and when the there was no probable cause that the victim was an impaired driver?

No. Your relentless pursuit of why things happened the way they did.

It could be that police departmental policy is that any vehicular accident involving a fatality gives probable cause to draw blood from an unconscious or dead driver. Perhaps that's the policy that's now changed.

Can't blame the cop for that.

Can't blame the cop for that.

Yes we can lamer.

It could be that police departmental policy is that any vehicular accident involving a fatality gives probable cause to draw blood from an unconscious or dead driver. Perhaps that's the policy that's now changed.

You're just making shit up out of thin air.

You're just making shit up out of thin air.

I'm stating possibilities, using words like "could be" and "perhaps".

You're the one making shit up with your "the detective and his supervisor violated a nurse's rights" and "placed her under false arrest" and "while trying to violate an accident victim's 4th Amendment rights" and "when the there was no probable cause that the victim was an impaired driver".

What's your plan -- to apologize later when the truth comes out or temporarily disappear from the forum?

I say the nurse wins, pretty much across the board. Including if she files a lawsuit for a fat settlement from SLC PD.

I say the nurse wins, pretty much across the board. Including if she files a lawsuit for a fat settlement from SLC PD.

Not if it goes to court. Not if we abide by the rule of law. Not if we instituted loser pays.

But *sigh*, none of that will happen. The police department and the city will cave under political correctness and social pressure which people like you will incorrectly interpret as an admission of malfeasance rather than what it really is -- a bribe to just shut up and go away.

They'll cave because their city attorney will tell them they're going to lose badly on the merits.

Merits schmerits. They might lose on the optics or on the emotional aspects, but legal merits? No.

I'm sure the police department will be able to point to dozens of prior instances where they drew blood without incident. They can point to state law. They can point to departmental policy. Both Detective Jeff Payne and his supervisor believed they were operating within legal parameters, even to the point where Payne's supervisor ordered the nurse arrested for obstruction.

The nurse didn't have the legal power to obstruct a police investigation. She exceeded her authority. For that she was briefly arrested. Briefly. Had SHE not resisted that arrest, things would have gone smoothly.

Afterwards, things could have been straightened out. If the state and the city and the police department and the supervisor and the detective were all wrong, the blood evidence couldn't be used at trial -- assuming there ever was one.

Keep in mind, that is the intent of fourth amendment protections -- to prevent evidence being used against you in a court of law. Plenty of time to sort this out.

The one that said they can draw blood from an unconscious driver?

Your imagination knows no bounds. The actual statute is constitutional. Your imaginary content attributed to it is not.

I can't really imagine how or why they went so far in this case when it wasn't even their case to begin with.

I have no actual information to add, but I can imagine why such a request could be made and pursued. Did the person running from the cops have some powerful connection? Could the accident be blamed on a drunk truck driver? That is just an imagining of what could impel such abberent behavior.

I am citing the law which explains the behavior.

Nope, you are citing a law that presumed consent to tests. It does not, and constitutionally cannot, authorized an invasive warrantless blood draw. You may have your license revoked, but the law does not permit an involuntary blood draw without a warrant, absent exigent circumstances. Alcohol dissipation cannot be considered exigent circumstances.

If the statute did provide for a forcible blood draw, which it does not, it would be unconstitutional, null and void, and you would be cited something which, in the eyes of the law, does not exist.

Could the accident be blamed on a drunk truck driver?

Or impaired by prescription drugs or a medical condition.

I would bet they scoured his phone (or tried to) to discover if he had had any texting or phone calls prior to the accident. Some trucks are also equipped with in-cab cameras to record everything the driver does, though the fire did seem pretty extensive to recover much from the accident.

Of course, the truck driver remained in his lane. He did not swerve into oncoming traffic.

Alcohol dissipation cannot be considered exigent circumstances.

I thought the Supremes told us that a warrantless blood draw due to exigency was to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But I'm not sure exactly what they meant by that in practical terms. Seemed kinda vague but IANAL.

Keep in mind, that is the intent of fourth amendment protections -- to prevent evidence being used against you in a court of law.

Keep in mind that it is the intent of the Fourth Amendment to forbid and prevent unlawful searches and seizures. It forbids the Legislature from enacting any legislation authorizing a misterwhite-approved unreasonable search.

If you read a statute to authorize such a search, you are reading the statute wrong.

The right of the 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.

The nurse didn't have the legal power to obstruct a police investigation. She exceeded her authority. For that she was briefly falsely arrested. Briefly. Had SHE not resisted that arrest, things would have gone smoothly.

What investigation?

Logan PD, perhaps trying to keep its hands clean, says it told SLCPD that it didn't matter if they got the blood after their initial request.

So what was SLCPD investigating? What was its legitimate authority to investigate an accident or collect any evidence in an accident that occurred 81 miles outside its jurisdiction and which involved no SLCPD at all and therefore no probable cause for blood draws or anything else?

SLCPD simply had no jurisdiction in this case at all.

What investigation?

Why, the accident of course. Not paying attention?

"So what was SLCPD investigating?"

They were assisting Logan PD by sending their trained phlebologist to legally collect a blood sample from an unconscious driver who was transported to the hospital.

"Logan PD, perhaps trying to keep its hands clean, ..."

You can bet they want no part of this.

Why, the accident of course. Not paying attention?

Not their investigation, not their turf, not their accident victim.

And Logan says they told them it was no problem if SLCPD didn't get a blood sample.

They were assisting Logan PD by sending their trained phlebologist to legally collect a blood sample from an unconscious driver who was transported to the hospital.

So you say. I'd like more info. No doubt, we will learn more in a few weeks. Probably when the FBI or SLC prosecutors file a case against Rotten Cop and his Rotten Supervisor who obviously conspired to deprive the driver of his 4th Amendment rights and tried to intimidate the nurse with a false arrest.

Recall the video of the arrest. Rotten Cop puts her in the car where she sat until Rotten Supervisor shows up five minutes later. Then we hear Rotten Supervisor saying that "she won't listen to me".

I think it is clear that the false arrest was leverage to get her to allow the blood draw even after the false arrest. That was what Rotten Supervisor was trying to do when he talked to her. Otherwise, he would have released her immediately when he got on the scene. Instead he was trying to persuade her to allow the illegal blood draw. They saw her as the key obstacle blocking them since she was head nurse of the burn unit. So they arrested her to try to intimidate her into allowing the illegal blood draw.

Hang 'em both.

I'm sure the police department will be able to point to dozens of prior instances where they drew blood without incident. They can point to state law. They can point to departmental policy. Both Detective Jeff Payne and his supervisor believed they were operating within legal parameters, even to the point where Payne's supervisor ordered the nurse arrested for obstruction.

The fact is, you are absolutely clueless about you are talking about.

Missouri v. McNeely, S. Ct. 11-1425, 569 U.S. ____ (17 Apr 2013)

[footnotes omitted]

At 2: (Syllabus)

(a) The principle that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception, see, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224, applies here, where the search involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely's skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a criminal investigation. One recognized exception "applies when '''the exigencies of the situation" make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable.'" Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. _, _.

[nc] You have admitted there is no claimed exception of exigent circumstances. Thus, the principal applies that the proposed search, involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely's skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a criminal investigation, required a search warrant.

Read it until you understand it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At 4-11: (Opinion of the Court)

II

A

The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that “[t]he right of the 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.” Our cases have held that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224 (1973). That principle applies to the type of search at issue in this case, which involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely’s skin and into his veins to obtain a sample of his blood for use as evidence in a criminal investigation. Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual’s [*5] “most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.” Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 760 (1985); see also Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 616 (1989).

We first considered the Fourth Amendment restrictions on such searches in Schmerber, where, as in this case, a blood sample was drawn from a defendant suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol. 384 U. S., at 758. Noting that “[s]earch warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings,” we reasoned that “absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned,” even when the search was conducted following a lawful arrest. Id., at 770. We explained that the importance of requiring authorization by a “‘neutral and detached magistrate’” before allowing a law enforcement officer to “invade another’s body in search of evidence of guilt is indisputable and great.” Ibid. (quoting Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 13–14 (1948)).

As noted, the warrant requirement is subject to exceptions. “One well-recognized exception,” and the one at issue in this case, “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement’s need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home, Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U. S. 45, 47–48 (2009) (per curiam), engage in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect, United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38, 42–43 (1976), or enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause, Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 509–510 (1978). As is relevant here, we have also recognized that in some circumstances law enforcement officers may conduct a search without a [*6] warrant to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. See Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 296 (1973); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 40–41 (1963) (plurality opinion). While these contexts do not necessarily involve equivalent dangers, in each a warrantless search is potentially reasonable because “there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” Tyler, 436 U. S., at 509.

[nc] In the instant case there was time to get a warrant. The detective did not even try.

To determine whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant, this Court looks to the totality of circumstances. See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 406 (2006) (finding officers’ entry into a home to provide emergency assistance “plainly reasonable under the circumstances”); Illinois v. Mc-Arthur, 531 U. S. 326, 331 (2001) (concluding that a warrantless seizure of a person to prevent him from returning to his trailer to destroy hidden contraband was reasonable “[i]n the circumstances of the case before us” due to exigency); Cupp, 412 U. S., at 296 (holding that a limited warrantless search of a suspect’s fingernails to preserve evidence that the suspect was trying to rub off was justified “[o]n the facts of this case”); see also Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 391–396 (1997) (rejecting a per se exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for felony drug investigations based on presumed exigency, and requiring instead evaluation of police conduct “in a particular case”). We apply this “finely tuned approach”to Fourth Amendment reasonableness in this context because the police action at issue lacks “the traditional justification that . . . a warrant . . . provides.” Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318, 347, n. 16 (2001). Absent that established justification, “the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry,” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U. S. 33, 39 (1996), demands that we evaluate each case of alleged exigency based “on its own facts and circumstances.” Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357 [*7] (1931).

Our decision in Schmerber applied this totality of the circumstances approach. In that case, the petitioner had suffered injuries in an automobile accident and was taken to the hospital. 384 U. S., at 758. While he was there receiving treatment, a police officer arrested the petitioner for driving while under the influence of alcohol and ordered a blood test over his objection. Id., at 758–759. After explaining that the warrant requirement applied generally to searches that intrude into the human body, we concluded that the warrantless blood test “in the present case” was nonetheless permissible because the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence.’” Id., at 770 (quoting Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964)).

In support of that conclusion, we observed that evidence could have been lost because “the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, as the body functions to eliminate it from the system.” 384 U. S., at 770. We added that “[p]articularly in a case such as this, where time had to be taken to bring the accused to a hospital and to investigate the scene of the accident, there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant.” Id., at 770–771. “Given these special facts,” we found that it was appropriate for the police to [*8] act without a warrant. Id., at 771. We further held that the blood test at issue was a reasonable way to recover the evidence because it was highly effective, “involve[d] virtually no risk, trauma, or pain,” and was conducted in a reasonable fashion “by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices.” Ibid. And in conclusion, we noted that our judgment that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation was strictly based“on the facts of the present record.” Id., at 772.

Thus, our analysis in Schmerber fits comfortably within our case law applying the exigent circumstances exception. In finding the warrantless blood test reasonable in Schmerber, we considered all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case and carefully based our holding on those specific facts.

B

The State properly recognizes that the reasonableness of a warrantless search under the exigency exception to the warrant requirement must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances. Brief for Petitioner 28–29. But the State nevertheless seeks a per se rule for blood testing in drunk-driving cases. The State contends that whenever an officer has probable cause to believe an individual has been driving under the influence of alcohol, exigent circumstances will necessarily exist because BAC evidence is inherently evanescent. As a result, the State claims that so long as the officer has probable cause and the blood test is conducted in a reasonable manner, it is categorically reasonable for law enforcement to obtain the blood sample without a warrant. It is true that as a result of the human body’s natural metabolic processes, the alcohol level in a person’s blood begins to dissipate once the alcohol is fully absorbed and continues to decline until the alcohol is eliminated. See Skinner, 489 U. S., at 623; Schmerber, 384 U. S., at 770– [*9] 771. Testimony before the trial court in this case indicated that the percentage of alcohol in an individual’s blood typically decreases by approximately 0.015 percent to 0.02 percent per hour once the alcohol has been fully absorbed. App. 47. More precise calculations of the rate at which alcohol dissipates depend on various individual characteristics (such as weight, gender, and alcohol tolerance) and the circumstances in which the alcohol was consumed. See Stripp, Forensic and Clinical Issues in Alcohol Analysis, in Forensic Chemistry Handbook 437–441 (L. Kobilinsky ed. 2012). Regardless of the exact elimination rate, it is sufficient for our purposes to note that because an individual’s alcohol level gradually declines soon after he stops drinking, a significant delay in testing will negatively affect the probative value of the results. This fact was essential to our holding in Schmerber, as we recognized that, under the circumstances, further delay in order to secure a warrant after the time spent investigating the scene of the accident and transporting the injured suspect to the hospital to receive treatment would have threatened the destruction of evidence. 384 U. S., at 770–771.

But it does not follow that we should depart from careful case-by-case assessment of exigency and adopt the categorical rule proposed by the State and its amici. In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so. See McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 456 (1948) (“We cannot . . . excuse the absence of a search warrant without a showing by those who seek exemption from the constitutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation made [the search] imperative”). We do not doubt that some circumstances will make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream will support an exigency justifying a properly [*10] conducted warrantless blood test. That, however, is a reason to decide each case on its facts, as we did in Schmerber, not to accept the “considerable overgeneralization” that a per se rule would reflect. Richards, 520 U. S., at 393.

The context of blood testing is different in critical respects from other destruction-of-evidence cases in which the police are truly confronted with a “‘now or never’” situation. Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U. S. 496, 505 (1973). In contrast to, for example, circumstances in which the suspect has control over easily disposable evidence, see Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103, 116, n. 6 (2006); Cupp, 412 U. S., at 296, BAC evidence from a drunk driving suspect naturally dissipates over time in a gradual and relatively predictable manner. Moreover, because a police officer must typically transport a drunk-driving suspect to a medical facility and obtain the assistance of someone with appropriate medical training before conducting a blood test, some delay between the time of the arrest or accident and the time of the test is inevitable regardless of whether police officers are required to obtain a warrant. See State v. Shriner, 751 N. W. 2d 538, 554 (Minn. 2008) (Meyer, J., dissenting). This reality undermines the force of the State’s contention, endorsed by the dissent, see post, at 3 (opinion of THOMAS, J.), that we should recognize a categorical exception to the warrant requirement because BAC evidence “is actively being destroyed with every minute that passes.” Brief for Petitioner 27. Consider, for example, a situation in which the warrant process will not significantly increase the delay before the blood test is conducted because an officer can take steps to secure a warrant while the suspect is being transported to a medical facility by another officer. In such a circumstance, there would be no plausible justification for an exception to the warrant requirement.

The State’s proposed per se rule also fails to account for [*11] advances in the 47 years since Schmerber was decided that allow for the more expeditious processing of warrant applications, particularly in contexts like drunk-driving investigations where the evidence offered to establish probable cause is simple. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were amended in 1977 to permit federal magistrate judges to issue a warrant based on sworn testimony communicated by telephone. See 91 Stat. 319. As amended, the law now allows a federal magistrate judge to consider “information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means.” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 4.1. States have also innovated. Well over a majority of States allow police officers or prosecutors to apply for search warrants remotely through various means, including telephonic or radio communication, electronic communication such as e-mail, and video conferencing.

Schmerber is deprecated by McNeely and technology.

Clearly noted is,

In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so.

And,

The State’s proposed per se rule also fails to account for [*11] advances in the 47 years since Schmerber was decided that allow for the more expeditious processing of warrant applications, particularly in contexts like drunk-driving investigations where the evidence offered to establish probable cause is simple.

[nc] In the instant case there was time to get a warrant. The detective did not even try.

The trucker was transported first by ambulance, then by air ambulance from Logan to SLC's university hospital.

That had to take at least 2 hours. And no one tried to get a warrant, just to get the blood by intimidation.

Recall that Rotten Cop said on video, "they don't have PC (probable cause)". I'd like to know if they tried for a warrant with a judge and got turned down or if they knew they'd get shot down and just tried to intimidate the nurse instead.

Maybe it's time to take a momemt's thought for one of the forgotten victims in this misadventure. Ten bucks is not a lot of money:

www.gofundme.com/BillGray

You have admitted there is no claimed exception of exigent circumstances.

Correct. But the court ruled that, "One recognized exception "applies when '''the exigencies of the situation" ..."

Gosh. That implies there are others, doesn't it? Otherwise the court would have ruled, "The only recognized exception "applies when '''the exigencies of the situation" ..."

But they didn't. You're acting as though they did. Tell me who's "clueless".