Warrantless blood draws: Does refusing permission to search create exigent circumstances justifying a search?

To contact us Click HERE
The US Supreme Court has granted cert on a case styled Missouri v. McNeely to determine "Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream."

The petition (pdf) to the court asserted that, "It is objectively reasonable for a law enforcement officer to obtain a warrantless blood test from a drunk driver because of the imminent destruction of evidence." But the "imminent destruction of evidence" in this instance is not somebody flushing drugs down a toilet or shredding critical files, but merely the fact that "alcohol is naturally eliminated from the human body."

To me, "destruction" of evidence implies an alleged offender actively doing something to impede investigators, but if the court overturns the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, "destruction" of evidence could mean, simply, doing nothing except refusing permission for an invasive search.

My own sense is that, given the Supreme Court's systematic gutting of the Fourth Amendment in recent decades, SCOTUS will probably say warrantless blood draws are constitutional. But it's disquieting to think that simply refusing permission to search would be deemed an "exigent circumstance" that allows police to search anyway. Something's not quite right about that circular construction.