Edward Taylor v. State of Indiana
69 N.E.3d 502
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Deputies found Edward Taylor passed out behind the wheel of a running, in-gear car; he displayed signs of intoxication, had a suspended license, and an outstanding warrant.
- Taylor failed field sobriety tests and was transported to a hospital for a blood draw; he initially consented but then refused once at the hospital.
- Prosecutor’s office obtained a search warrant for Taylor’s blood; the signed warrant was emailed as a photo to the officer because of time constraints for chemical testing.
- Sergeant Brahaum showed Taylor the warrant image on her phone; Taylor demanded a paper copy, refused to cooperate, and struggled with officers before the blood draw was completed.
- Taylor moved to suppress the blood evidence arguing the officer’s possession of only an electronic/photo copy of the warrant violated his rights; the trial court denied the motion and the order was certified for interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an officer must have or serve a physical paper copy of a search warrant before conducting a blood draw | Taylor: an electronic/photo copy is insufficient; he must be shown a physical warrant and his rights were violated when only the phone image was shown | State: no constitutional or statutory requirement that an executing officer have or serve a paper copy; electronic transmission authorized by statute and a retained record suffices | Court: Affirmed — electronic copy valid; no requirement to serve or carry a paper warrant; warrant otherwise valid and search lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (taking of blood is a search governed by Fourth Amendment principles)
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) (Fourth Amendment does not require presenting a copy of the warrant to the property owner before executing it)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (discusses technological means for warrant applications and limits on warrant exceptions)
- Smith v. State, 311 P.3d 132 (Wyo. 2013) (electronic copies and recorded sworn testimony can satisfy written-affidavit requirements in modern practice)
- Robinson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. 2014) (standards for appellate review of suppression rulings and considering undisputed evidence favorable to defendant)
- Doctor v. State, 57 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for motions to suppress)