The case Missouri v. McNeely struck down per se exigency as an exception to the warrant requirement. It does not necessarily require police to obtain a warrant to draw blood. NRS 484C.160 provides that a police officer can force a blood draw during a DUI arrest. At this point, NRS 484C.160 still applies in Nevada. The DUI courts are moving very slowly, and there are differing opinions about how McNeely will change the state of DUI law. Our firm has several motions to exclude blood samples in the courts right now. We will have a more definitive answer after the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled on the issue.
Short answer: we don't know yet. But it is a very interesting question.
The statute permits drawing blood without a warrant if you refuse the breathalyzer.
The information presented here is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Goodman Law Group, P.C. recommends that you consult an attorney with experience in your specific legal issue. Please contact us to schedule a confidential discussion of your situation. Such communication does not create an attorney-client relationship of any kind until a formal engagement agreement is signed by both you and the Goodman Law Group, P.C.
Given the recent ruling, you should definitely hire a private attorney and file a motion to suppress this evidence. My partner handles these, and is arguing one of these motions next week. Actually, he's re-arguing it--he made the same argument before the recent Supreme Court Ruling, and is having it re-considered given the ruling.
He can generally get you in to see him for a free consultation in a day or so.
Sign up to receive a 3-part series of useful information and legal advice about DUIs.