In Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. (2013) (slip op.), McNeely was taken to the hospital to secure a blood sample after he refused a police officer's request to submit to a breath test. The request came after McNeely was pulled over for moving violations and the police officer observed several signs consistent with intoxication. A blood sample was obtained without a search warrant, despite McNeely's refusal to consent. The limited issue before the Court was whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream is a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the warrant requirement. The defendant was pulled over for speeding and crossing the centerline. He refused to take a breath or blood test, and subsequently, defendant's blood was drawn without a warrant. (McNeely, supra, 133 S.Ct. at p. 1557.) The United States Supreme Court held that, before the police may conduct a nonconsensual blood test of a motorist who is arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, the police must either obtain a warrant from a detached magistrate or later show that exigent circumstances prevented them from timely obtaining a warrant. The high court also held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in a driver's bloodstream does not create exigent circumstances in every case, and that the government must show on a case-by-case basis that a warrantless blood draw was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court noted that the situation the officer was facing did not constitute an emergency in which he could not practicably obtain a warrant. (Ibid. ) The Court found McNeely to be a routine DUI investigation where no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, and thus, the nonconsensual, warrantless test violated the defendant's right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person. (Id. at pp. 1557, 1568.) The Court found that no such per se exigency exists, and held "that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of circumstances."