Transportation Code · U.S. Supreme Court, 2013

Missouri v. McNeely

Missouri v. McNeely is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision. This page summarizes key points and works through practice questions for Texas peace officer exam preparation.

Key points

  • No per se exigency from dissipation
  • Warrant generally required for non-consent blood draw
  • Case-by-case totality of circumstances for any claimed exigency

Learn more about this topic

Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.

Start Free Practice

Worked examples

Worked example 1

After Missouri v. McNeely (2013) and State v. Villarreal (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), the natural dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream:

  1. Always creates per se exigency justifying a warrantless blood draw
  2. Does not categorically create exigent circumstances; warrant requirement remains, with case-by-case totality-of-circumstances analysis Correct
  3. Justifies warrantless searches for 24 hours
  4. Permits forced urine collection
Why: Dissipation of alcohol does not automatically establish exigent circumstances. Officers generally must obtain a search warrant for blood when consent is refused, absent a true case-specific exigency.
Statute: Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013); State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)