In a Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday, April 17,2013, has made an impact in DUI rules. In an 8-1 decision, The Supreme Court ruling limited the ability of police officers to take involuntary blood samples from suspected drunken-drivers without a search warrant in most cases.

When stopped for a DUI, drivers have the option of taking either a breath or blood test to measure the level of alcohol or drugs in their system. If they refuse to take either, their license can be automatically suspended for a year.

Usually, when one refuses the breath test, they are automatically given a blood test. The court said that taking blood samples without the driver’s consent violated the Constitution’s protection  against “unreasonable searches and seizures”. This means the police usually need a warrant from a magistrate before invading a person’s privacy. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that sticking a needle into someone’s veins “is an invasion of bodily integrity [that] implicates an individual’s most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.”

The ruling stemmed from a Missouri court’s decision to dismiss the blood tests of a Missouri resident suspected of drunk driving. The gentlemen refused to undergo a breath test and was then handcuffed and taken to a hospital where his blood was drawn and BAC was almost twice the limit.

Police need a warrant to take a suspect’s blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence, the Missouri court said. The justices noted it is usually simple and quick for an officer to get a warrant by phone or computer.But she also said that police sometimes need to act fast and in these cases they do not need to wait for a magistrate. Even then, these emergencies should only be the exception.