Missouri v. McNeely
E390989
Missouri v. McNeely is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for nonconsensual blood draws in drunk-driving investigations, rejecting a per se rule based on the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Missouri v. McNeely canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3822020 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Missouri v. McNeely Context triple: [October Term 2012, includesCase, Missouri v. McNeely]
-
A.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
B.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
C.
Illinois v. Gates
Illinois v. Gates is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "totality of the circumstances" test for determining whether an informant’s tip provides probable cause for issuing a search warrant.
-
D.
New York v. Quarles
New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
-
E.
Moore v. Illinois
Moore v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional criminal procedure issues, particularly concerning the rights of defendants in state prosecutions.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Missouri v. McNeely Target entity description: Missouri v. McNeely is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for nonconsensual blood draws in drunk-driving investigations, rejecting a per se rule based on the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.
-
A.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
B.
Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
C.
Illinois v. Gates
Illinois v. Gates is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "totality of the circumstances" test for determining whether an informant’s tip provides probable cause for issuing a search warrant.
-
D.
New York v. Quarles
New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
-
E.
Moore v. Illinois
Moore v. Illinois is a United States Supreme Court decision addressing constitutional criminal procedure issues, particularly concerning the rights of defendants in state prosecutions.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Fourth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ drunk driving case ⓘ search and seizure case ⓘ |
| citation |
133 S. Ct. 1552
ⓘ
185 L. Ed. 2d 696 ⓘ 569 U.S. 141 ⓘ |
| clarifies | Schmerber v. California ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Elena Kagan ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
U.S. Const. amend. IV
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2013-04-17 ⓘ |
| decisionType | plurality decision ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 11-1425 ⓘ |
| holding |
In drunk-driving investigations, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant before a nonconsensual blood test may be administered.
ⓘ
The natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute a per se exigency justifying a warrantless blood draw in drunk-driving investigations. ⓘ |
| impact | limited police authority to conduct warrantless blood draws in DUI cases ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Elena Kagan ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalIssue |
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourth Amendment
exigent circumstances ⓘ nonconsensual blood draw ⓘ warrant requirement ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | Missouri state court ⓘ |
| overrules | per se exigency rule based solely on alcohol dissipation ⓘ |
| petitioner |
Missouri
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Missouri
|
| pluralityOpinionBy | Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| relatedTo | Schmerber v. California ⓘ |
| respondent | Tyler G. McNeely ⓘ |
| rule | Exigency for warrantless blood draws must be determined case by case under the totality of the circumstances. ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
driving while intoxicated
ⓘ
warrantless searches ⓘ |
| subsequentCitation |
Birchfield v. North Dakota
ⓘ
Navarette v. California ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2012 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2013 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Missouri v. McNeely Description of subject: Missouri v. McNeely is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for nonconsensual blood draws in drunk-driving investigations, rejecting a per se rule based on the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.