Case Citator › Missouri v. McNeely

Missouri v. McNeely

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
569 U.S. 141
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
121 of 121
Citing cases (total)
1,517
Treatment dates
2015–2019
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Missouri v. McNeely remains controlling on ordinary warrantless blood draws, but its rule has two confirmed limits listed below. All 121 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

O'Connell v. State held McNeely nonretroactive on collateral review of a final conviction, and Mitchell v. Wisconsin established a near-presumption of exigency when a suspected drunk driver becomes unconscious before an evidentiary breath test. The remaining citing opinions applied McNeely, reported its treatment of older per-se-exigency cases, or addressed distinct consent, good-faith, and implied-consent questions.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,517 later cases cite Missouri v. McNeely; 121 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Missouri v. McNeely?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that McNeely announced a new procedural rule that was not a watershed rule and therefore does not apply retroactively on collateral review of a final conviction.

    O'Connell v. State · Minnesota Court of Appeals · filed

    Because the rule announced in McNeely is not a watershed rule, it does not retroactively apply on collateral review of O’Connell’s conviction.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Mitchell plurality, joined in the judgment by a fifth Justice who would have adopted a broader rule, confined McNeely's case-by-case approach for unconscious or stuporous drivers: officers may almost always order a warrantless blood test when the driver's condition prevents a standard evidentiary breath test, subject to an unusual-case exception.

    Mitchell v. Wisconsin · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    When police have probable cause to believe a person has committed a drunk-driving offense and the driver's unconsciousness or stupor requires him to be taken to the hospital or similar facility before police have a reasonable opportunity to administer a standard evidentiary breath test, they may almost always order a warrantless blood test to measure the driver's BAC without offending the Fourth Amendment. We do not rule out the possibility that in an unusual case a defendant would be able to show that his blood would not have been drawn if police had not been seeking BAC information, and that police could not have reasonably judged that a warrant application would interfere with other pressing needs or duties.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Missouri v. McNeely and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace