Transportation Code · Missouri v. McNeely

Missouri v. Mcneely

Missouri v. Mcneely is covered under Missouri v. McNeely and tested on the TCOLE peace officer licensing exam. Cadets typically encounter this topic under "DWI Procedure" on practice exams.

To prove this offense, the State must establish each of the following elements: No per se exigency from dissipation; Warrant generally required for non-consent blood draw; Case-by-case totality of circumstances for any claimed exigency.

Elements you must prove

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

Practice 1 question on 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)