Missouri
How Birchfield v. North Dakota applies in Missouri: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Procedure (Fourth Amendment).
Missouri courts have largely adopted the principles set forth in Birchfield v. North Dakota, which emphasize that warrantless blood draws for suspected DUI offenders must comply with the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard. The state has reinforced the distinction between consensual breath tests and mandatory blood tests in DUI cases.
Under Missouri law, law enforcement officers may conduct a breath test for intoxication without a warrant, but a blood test requires either a warrant or exigent circumstances, following the reasoning in Birchfield.
The Missouri Court of Appeals held that a warrantless blood draw was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing the need for a warrant or exigent circumstances.
In this case, the court reinforced that breath tests do not require a warrant, aligning with the Birchfield decision that differentiates between breath and blood tests.
Missouri's approach is consistent with the federal standard established by Birchfield, which asserts that while breath tests are permissible without a warrant, blood tests require a warrant due to higher privacy concerns. This alignment ensures Missouri's compliance with the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Candidates should be familiar with the distinctions made in Birchfield regarding warrantless searches in DUI cases, as this forms a critical evaluation point in Fourth Amendment issues on the Missouri bar exam.