135 N.E.3d 1070
Mass. App. Ct.2019Background
- Shortly after midnight officers found Brian Dennis unconscious after his car hit a utility pole; he was transported to a hospital and arrested for OUI.
- At the hospital Officer Dion read a statutory “rights and consent” form to Dennis; a nurse had earlier delayed consent until he was medically cleared.
- The form requested consent to a “chemical test” but did not specify blood; Dennis signed the form and blood was drawn thereafter.
- The motion judge credited the officer, found Dennis did not object, applied the Commonwealth's traditional/statutory consent standard, and denied Dennis’s motion to suppress.
- On appeal the Commonwealth disclaimed any reliance on exigent circumstances; the Appeals Court therefore reviewed whether the Commonwealth proved actual, voluntary consent under the Fourth Amendment.
- The Appeals Court concluded the form was ambiguous about a blood draw and the Commonwealth failed to prove constitutional voluntariness, so it reversed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Dennis's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless blood draw when no exigency | Signed statutory consent form and lack of objection show consent (traditional indicia) | Signature ambiguous; consent not voluntary under Fourth Amendment | Consent to blood not proven; suppression required |
| Whether implied-consent statute supplies constitutional consent | Statutory/implied consent satisfies requirement even without warrant or exigency | Implied-consent cannot substitute for actual, voluntary constitutional consent | Implied-consent statutes do not meet Fourth Amendment voluntariness requirement |
| Standard for assessing consent when probable cause but no exigency | Apply Commonwealth's "traditional indicia" test (Davidson) | Apply federal voluntariness test (Schneckloth/Birchfield) | Federal voluntariness test governs absent exigency; traditional indicia only when exigency allows compelled testing under Fourth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (exigency not automatic in drunk-driving cases; totality-of-circumstances analysis required)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrant excused where exigent circumstances—accident and evidence dissipation—justify blood draw)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (blood draws require warrant or voluntary consent; courts must assess voluntariness)
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019) (implied-consent laws do not create constitutionally adequate consent to bodily intrusions)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness standard for consent under the Fourth Amendment)