In January, the Missouri Supreme court upheld the trial courts decision to suppress evidence from a warrantless blood draw because the state argued that the blood draw was necessary to avoid destroying evidence due to dissipation of blood alcohol in the blood. (Using Schmerber vs California, the 1966 US Supreme court case that is the basis for warrantless blood draws.) In other words, they drew blood to avoid the Defendant’s blood would loose BAC over time, they couldn’t wait for a warrant.
However, the Missouri Supreme court determined that it requires more than the mere dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence to support a warrantless blood draw in an alcohol-related case. Officers must reasonably believe that they are confronted with an emergency where the delay in obtaining a warrant would threaten the destruction of evidence.
Long story short: If you find yourself in a situation where you refused to blow and blood was drawn without a warrant, with a similar fact pattern your attorney should be able to have that evidence suppressed which could substantially improve your position in court.