A deadly snowstorm packing hurricane-force wind pummeled the Great Plains on Monday, the second bout of fierce winter weather there in less than a week. Authorities pleaded with people to stay off the roads.

Wind gusts of 75 mph were recorded at the airport in Amarillo, Texas, and up to a foot and a half of snow was on the ground — the most in at least 110 years. At least one city fire truck was stuck.

“This is a really nasty blizzard,” said Greg Postel, a meteorologist with The Weather Channel.

The storm was being blamed for at least two deaths: In the town of Woodward, Okla., heavy snow caused a roof to collapse, killing one person inside the home, Oklahoma Highway Patrol told NBC News. And in northwest Kansas, a 21-year-old man was killed when his SUV overturned on an icy patch of Interstate-70, according to Kansas Emergency Management officials.

Full coverage from weather.com

National Guard units set out to help drivers stranded along Interstate 40, but the state said that troopers couldn’t get to everyone because of the whiteout. The wind whipped the snow into 10-foot drifts.

Amarillo had 17 inches of snow on the ground at mid-afternoon, threatening its single-day record of 18.1 inches, set in 1934.

Larry Phillips / Southwest Daily Times via AP

City crews remove snow early on Monday in Liberal, Kan., which is under a blizzard warning until Tuesday at midnight.

Authorities closed highways in the Oklahoma panhandle, which was bracing for more than a foot of snow. The University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University canceled afternoon classes.

In Kansas, which was expecting up to 2 feet of snow through Tuesday, Gov. Sam Brownback extended a state of emergency from last week.

“This storm has the potential to be more dangerous than last week’s storm,” he said. His advice to drivers: “Stay off the road unless it’s absolutely critical.” For those who had to drive, he suggested packing charged phones and emergency kits.

The storm last week dumped more than 14 inches of snow on Wichita, Kan., its second-highest total on record. Parts of Kansas got a foot and a half, and parts of Missouri more than a foot.

Jamie Squire / Getty Images

Tow-truck driver Tyson House helps trucker Gary Wheeler after his vehicle slid off the road in Greensburg, Kan., during last week's storm.

Joe Pajor, a public works official, told NBC affiliate KSN in Wichita that this storm would create driving conditions “that are basically unprecedented for the traveling public.”

The storm’s reach extended to the Southeast. The National Weather Service said it could spawn tornadoes Tuesday in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and the Florida Panhandle.

FedEx said the storm was causing delays for deliveries in 15 states, as far east as Pennsylvania and as far north as Minnesota.

The storm also threatened to dump 6 inches of snow on Chicago through Tuesday.

The same weather system blanketed Colorado on Sunday. About 200 flights were canceled at the airport in Denver, and Gov. John Hickenlooper told non-essential state workers to report two hours late Monday.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:39 AM EST

Southern Poverty Law Center

Stacy Dawson, a Missouri high school student, had been told he couldn't attend prom with his boyfriend.

An openly gay Missouri teenager has won the right to attend high school prom with his boyfriend after threatening legal action, the district superintendent said Friday.

Stacy Dawson, a 17-year-old senior at Scott County Central High School in Sikeston, Mo., had been told last year that he couldn't bring his boyfriend due to a line in the school's handbook that said "students will be permitted to invite one guest, girls invite boys and boys invite girls."

When Dawson questioned the policy, he was told by a school administrator that the school board would not consider revising it, according to The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization representing Dawson. So on Thursday -- Valentine's Day -- Dawson had The Southern Poverty Law Center send a letter to Scott County Central High and the school district threatening legal action.

One day later, the district had good news for Dawson: They were removing the offending line from their handbook, and said the line was never meant to be exclusive in the first place.

"I found out why the stipulation in the student handbook was originally put in there, and it's rather innocent, to be honest," Alvin McFerren, Scott County Central School District superintendent, said. "This was during a time 10-15 years ago that the previous administration was having issues with some of the students trying to come in on either the single rate or the couple rate. They implemented that to make sure they couldn't circumvent the rates that students were supposed to pay as they entered into our dances."

McFerren said Dawson will be allowed to go to prom with his boyfriend.

"It was never intended to be a discriminatory thing," he said. "We want an educational environment for all of our kids and we're not ever going to discriminate as to whether or not the board has the policy and we don't do that based on sexual orientation. Period."

McFerren said he felt the community, which has just over 360 students in the entire district, would take the change well.

"We are a family," McFerren said. "We're such a small school that I don't feel as if there will be any negative reactions whatsoever. It was never intended to be a policy that would create any controversy in the first place."

In a phone call with NBC News on Friday, Dawson said he was "incredibly happy" with the decision and is "really looking forward" to going to the prom with his boyfriend.

"I automatically told my boyfriend," Dawson said. "He was just as happy as I was."

Dawson said many classmates have told him that it’s good he is standing up for what he believes in.

"My classmates have been really supportive," he said.

In its letter to the school and district, the law center had alleged that under a 1969 Supreme Court decision -- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District -- Dawson's school could not legally censor his right to free expression, including the right to express himself by taking a same-sex date. The Tinker ruling declared that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates.”

The letter also cited a more recent case out of Mississippi, where a girl sued her high school over a ban on same-sex couples at the prom in 2010. Constance McMillen ultimately won the case against Itawamba County Agricultural High School after a federal judge ruled that the school district violated her constitutional rights to freedom of speech by not allowing her to wear a tuxedo and bring her girlfriend to the prom.

Scott County Central High's prom is scheduled for April 20. Dawson's lawyer said the change was welcome, but that the law center had yet to receive written confirmation the policy has been removed from the student handbook.

"If it is indeed true that the policy has been permanently changed, it represents a big step forward for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) students in a part of the country that frequently lacks community support for students like Stacy," Alesdair Ittelson, staff attorney for the law center, said.

"We wish that schools out there would proactively take these unconstitutional policies off the books," Ittelson told NBC News.

NBC News Staff Writer Vignesh Ramachandran contributed to this story.

This story was originally published on Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:11 PM EST

A storm encased the Midwest in glistening ice on Sunday, forcing officials to cancel flights and closing roadways and threatening to tangle the start of the work week as freezing rains headed east. 

Hundreds of churches across Iowa called off Sunday services as sidewalks were turned to sheets of ice by the storm that meteorologists said had covered the Midwest in about a half-inch of ice by midday. 

Flights in and out of Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Louis were grounded on icy runways. 

The National Weather Service issued a freezing rain advisory for Chicago and the surrounding area for Sunday until 9 p.m. local time, when temperatures were expected to warm up enough to make it just rain. Until then, the weather service warned of dangerous conditions for driving and even walking. 

"Pockets of sleet, freezing rain and freezing drizzle are possible farther east late tonight into Monday morning from Buffalo, New York, to New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Roanoke, Virginia," meteorologist Brian Edwards said on Accuweather.com. 

Slick roadways were reported from South Sioux City, Nebraska, to Iowa, where numerous crashes were reported, according to the Iowa Department of Transportation. In Franklin County, Iowa, Interstate 35 was blocked by tractor trailers struggling to get a grip on treacherous surfaces. 

"Instant icing of windshields and roadway surfaces (as well as driveways, sidewalks and parking lots) can be expected in the areas with freezing temperatures," the Iowa DOT said. 

In Missouri, ramps to connecting Interstate 270, which circles the St. Louis area, to Interstate 70 were closed early Sunday morning because of ice, but were later reopened, said Marie Elliott, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Transportation. 

--Additional reporting by Reuters' Tim Bross in Missouri, Kay Henderson in Iowa and David Hendee in Nebraska; Editing by Edith Honan and Bill Trott. 

Justices indicated Wednesday that the dangers of drunken driving don't trump the Fourth Amendment, peppering lawyers for the state of Missouri with objections to their request that the Supreme Court allow law enforcement to order blood tests for DUI without suspects' consent.

The case, Missouri v. McNeely, is seen as a landmark that could clear up almost 50 years of uncertainty over the constitutionality of blood tests that are conducted without a warrant. Legal scholars say it could rewrite drunken-driving laws in all 50 states.

The case hinges on how you interpret a 1966 opinion by then-Justice William Brennan, who wrote (.pdf) that law enforcement should get a warrant before taking a blood draw without a suspect's consent, except in a few very limited circumstances that rise to the level of an emergency.

Missouri wants the court to declare that the dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream is, on its face, an emergency allowing officers to get a blood test immediately and without a warrant.

But justices indicated that they firmly believed that taking someone's blood was an intrusion that in most cases constituted a government "seizure" subject to protection of the Fourth Amendment and requiring the subject's permission or prior approval from a judge.

"How can it be reasonable to forgo the Fourth Amendment in a procedure as intrusive as a needle going into someone's body?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked John Koester, a prosecutor in Jackson, Mo., who represented the state Wednesday.

Related: Full preliminary transcript of Wednesday's arguments (.pdf)

Sotomayor said that if the court ruled Missouri's way, it would be giving law enforcement free rein to "use the most intrusive way you can to prove your case," which wouldn't always be the most constitutionally sound way.

The officer who arrested Tyler McNeely acknowledged that he didn't seek a warrant when he told a hospital lab technician to draw McNeely's blood after a DUI stop in 2010 because he believed he didn't need to, not because he didn't think he couldn't get one in time. 

That troubled several justices, who wanted know how a suspect's fundamental Fourth Amendment rights could be overshadowed for the convenience of law enforcement.

"Why should the Fourth Amendment permit the search to take place without the warrant when it could have been obtained?" Justice Samuel Alito asked Nicole Saharsky of the U.S. solicitor general's office, who joined Koester in arguing Missouri's side.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "It was and I think still is the main rule that if you can get a warrant, you must do that."

Even Antonin Scalia, the court's most law-and-order justice, questioned Missouri's argument, telling Koester, "Once we say that you don't need a warrant, you know, even if things improve, the game's up, right?"

"Why don't you force him (McNeely) to take the Breathalyzer test, instead of forcing him to have a needle shoved in his arm?" Scalia asked.

Justices' questions during arguments don't always signal how they will vote; the justices often pose hypotheticals designed to crystallize or clarify a contrary position.

But Lyle Denniston, a Supreme Court expert writing on Scotusblog, said it seemed clear that "the court is not going to let police across the nation order — on their own authority — the taking of blood samples from those suspected of drunk driving."

"Two impressions were dominant throughout the argument: the Justices generally do regard the use of a needle to take a blood sample as quite an intrusive gesture by the government, and the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement should not be cast aside for all cases of drunk driving when officers decide to order a blood draw," he wrote.

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

David Carson / St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP

Police officers inspect a car belonging to missing woman Ebony Jackson that was found in St. Louis on Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2013.

A 30-year-old woman suspected of abandoning her infant son last week in an apartment building in St. Louis was found dead in the trunk of her car, prompting the police chief in a nearby town to stand on a street corner soliciting reward money for the hunt for her killer.

Ebony Jackson's 2004 Mitsubishi Galant was found around 10 a.m. Tuesday in Breckenridge Hills, about 16 miles away from St. Louis. Her car, found on the 4400 block of Elmbank Avenue, was located via GPS, and the vehicle was towed to a secure location so police could begin a thorough search.

Jackson's 3-month-old baby was discovered in the hallway of the Hickory Trace Apartment building on Friday, Jan. 4, nearly 12 miles away from where her car was found. The child was in a car seat and was in good health, police said.

Meanwhile, the police chief of Pine Lawn, about nine miles from St. Louis, began collecting money to put toward a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Jackson’s killer.  

Police Chief Rickey Collins said neither he nor his department have any connection with Jackson, only that her death “rocked” the community. So he stood on a street corner beginning at 9 a.m. Wednesday, with the goal of collecting $5,000 by 3 p.m.

“It was an unbelievable murder that really touched a lot of hearts of the people here in St. Louis because it went from child abandonment to homicide,” Collins told NBC News. “I know Missouri is a very generous state and collecting rewards has always brought witnesses and evidence forward, so I hope to get information to bring the person forward and solve the case.”

Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com

A man from Oklahoma claiming to be the father of the baby said Jackson left with their son and headed to Missouri. That man came to St. Louis earlier this week to take a paternity test, the results of which are still pending, NBC affiliate station KSDK in St. Louis reported.

With less than an hour left of standing outside, Collins, who is on vacation until Jan. 22, said he thought he would get close to reaching his goal.

“You would think that everyone knows this woman,” Collins said. “People have been very generous, they are participating, giving thumbs up as they pass by and are very supportive of what we’re doing and why we’re doing it.”

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department did not identify a cause of death for Jackson. An autopsy will be performed, police said.

On Thursday, the Pine Lawn Police Department plans on releasing the official amount raised for the reward. 

Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a landmark Fourth Amendment case that could clear up almost 50 years of uncertainty over the constitutionality of blood tests that are taken without a suspect's consent.

The case involves a traffic stop in Missouri, but its ramifications could range far wider, potentially rewriting drunk-driving laws in all 50 states.

"It comes down, basically, to are you going to see blood draws every single time someone gets pulled over for a DUI," said Michael A. Correll, a litigator with the international law firm Alston & Bird, who examined the legality of blood draws in the West Virginia Law Review last year. 

Because drunk-driving stops are such an everyday occurrence, "it's going to affect a broad area of society," he told NBC News, adding: "This may be the most widespread Fourth Amendment situation that you and I are going to face" for the foreseeable future.

Writing last month in the journal of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, Lauren Owens, a research attorney for the organization, said, "The outcome of the case could lead to a dramatic increase in the number of DWI cases supported by blood evidence."

The case began in October 2010, when Tyler McNeely of Cape Girardeau, Mo., about 100 miles south of St. Louis, was pulled over for speeding. According to court documents, McNeely was unsteady and failed field sobriety tests, so state Highway Patrol Cpl. Mark Winder asked him to take a breath test.

Even before Supreme Court rules, gay marriage battles rage in the states

When McNeely refused, Winder took him to a hospital, where McNeely refused to take a blood test. Winder told the lab technician to take a sample anyway. The record shows that at no time did Winder seek a warrant compelling the test, which indicated that McNeely's blood-alcohol level was almost double the legal limit.

But McNeely's lawyers persuaded the trial judge to exclude the evidence as a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here's where it gets complicated. Earlier in 2010, the Missouri Legislature changed the state's "implied consent" law, which says that if you drive on Missouri's roads, you've automatically consented to take a sobriety test. 

The previous language said explicitly that if you refused to take a test, then "none shall be given" and the refusal itself could be used as evidence against you.

The new language left out the four words "none shall be given," re-emphasizing that the driver had consented simply by having gotten behind the wheel in the first place. Winder testified that he had read a journal article about the change and said he made a "conscious decision" not to seek a warrant "due to the law changes."

On appeal, the state argued that no warrant was needed because of a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a California DUI case that laid out circumstances under which law enforcement could order a blood test without a warrant.

Supreme Court lets embryonic stem cell research go forward

In general, a person's blood is protected under the Fourth Amendment, Justice William Brennan wrote in Schmerber v. California (.pdf): "Search warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings, and, absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned."

But Brennan noted that Armando Schmerber, the driver in the California case, had been in an accident. Because the officer had to investigate the scene and make sure Schmerber was taken to a hospital for treatment, "there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant" before the driver's body metabolized the alcohol in his system, Brennan wrote.

So Brennan carved out what he called a "stringently limited" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement because of the likelihood that evidence — the alcohol in the driver's blood — would be destroyed during the delay. That clause has come to be known as the "exigent circumstances" or "special facts" exception. 

Missouri argued that delaying McNeely's blood test while the officer sought a warrant amounted to an exigent circumstance because the alcohol in his blood would be destroyed. McNeely argued that because his case involved a straightforward DUI stop — he wasn't in an accident, unlike Schmerber in 1966 — Winder had plenty of time to seek a warrant.

Missouri's Supreme Court agreed with McNeely in January 2012, writing (.pdf):

The patrolman here, however, was not faced with the "special facts" of Schmerber. Because there was no accident to investigate and there was no need to arrange for the medical treatment of any occupants, there was no delay that would threaten the destruction of evidence before a warrant could be obtained. ... The sole special fact present in this case, that blood-alcohol levels dissipate after drinking ceases, is not a per se exigency pursuant to Schmerber justifying an officer to order a blood test without obtaining a warrant from a neutral judge.  

As the court itself noted, Brennan stressed 47 years ago that his analysis was expressly limited to the facts of the Schmerber case, but that hasn't stopped various state and federal courts from referring to it over the years, not all of them reading it the same way. 

So in May, the state of Missouri asked the U.S. Supreme Court (.pdf) to step in because "this emerging conflict on a fundamental Fourth Amendment issue will likely continue to divide courts throughout the United States."

Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com

The federal government has sided with Missouri, writing in a friend-of-the-court brief (.pdf) that "the fact that the evidence of intoxication is necessarily leaving the suspect's system provides the required exigency." Prosecutors from across the country joined to file a similar brief (.pdf).

But the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing McNeely, argued that there were no special circumstances trumping the Fourth Amendment.

In any event, it told the Supreme Court (.pdf), the issue is groundless, because — as he testified himself — the arresting officer ordered the blood test because he thought he could, not because of any "special facts." That means it's "a strange case in which to construe the exigency exception to the Fourth Amendment," the ACLU argued.

The court's decision is likely to come down to one simple question, Correll said: "Did Schmerber create a blanket exception to the Fourth Amendment or didn't it?"

"What does the court indicate the emergency is?" he asked. "Is the emergency the inability to get a warrant in a set period of time, or is the emergency that the blood alcohol is dissipating?"

As for McNeely, he's not off the hook even if he wins. Under a separate law that isn't at issue, his driver's license was revoked because he refused to take the breath and blood tests. And both sides agree that the blood test wasn't the only evidence against him, meaning he could still be convicted of felony drunk driving.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• 'Help me!': 911 call reveals teen's desperation after relatives shot in Aurora theater
• FBI: James Holmes' booby-trap used remote-control car, frying pan
• 'Wake-up call': Chicago set to break 73-year-old snowless record
• NOAA: 2012 was warmest year ever for US, second most 'extreme'
• Gabby Giffords launches group to counter gun lobby
• Lottery winner killed by cyanide was immigrant, family man

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook