2024 TSPR 87
P.R.2024Background:
- 16 June 2021: fatal head‑on crash in Cidra; driver José Miguel Álvarez De Jesús allegedly caused death while driving his truck.
- Prosecutor filed criminal charges including driving under the influence; hospital blood draw (0.18% BAC) was taken on 17 June 2021 after police requested it at the hospital.
- Sergeant testified he told Álvarez De Jesús he had "to" take a blood test as part of protocol; Álvarez agreed but refused to sign warnings without an attorney; hospital had given him Demerol earlier.
- Trial court found the blood draw was voluntary but suppressed the toxicology result because police did not inform him he could refuse or that the sample might be used in criminal prosecution; admissions were admitted.
- Court of Appeals affirmed suppression. The Commonwealth petitioned for certiorari; the Supreme Court (majority) reversed on 12 Aug 2024, holding a warrantless blood draw is admissible when consent is voluntary even if the person was not told of the right to refuse or of criminal consequences. A three‑judge dissent argued Puerto Rico’s constitution requires informed consent.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (P.R.) | Defendant's Argument (Álvarez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless blood draw is invalid absent a judicial warrant if taken without informing the subject of the right to refuse | Consent was voluntary; no warrant necessary when valid consent is given | Consent was not a knowing, intelligent waiver because he was not told he could refuse or of criminal consequences | Majority: Warrantless blood draw is lawful if consent was voluntary; police need not advise of right to refuse |
| Whether prosecution must prove the subject knew of right to refuse to establish voluntary consent | Schneckloth voluntariness test suffices; knowledge of right is a factor but not required | Knowledge is required for a valid waiver of a constitutional right protecting privacy | Held: Knowledge is not required; voluntariness assessed from totality of circumstances |
| Whether the privilege against self‑incrimination protects physical blood evidence or requires Miranda‑style warnings before obtaining blood | Physical evidence (blood) is not testimonial; Fifth Amendment privilege not implicated | Failure to inform about consequences made the waiver involuntary and implicated self‑incrimination concerns | Held: Blood is physical evidence (Schmerber); Fifth Amendment protections for testimony do not bar admission of blood drawn with voluntary consent |
| Whether administration of Demerol or absence of reasonable suspicion negates voluntariness | State: medical treatment and lack of overt intoxication do not negate voluntariness; police may request tests after accidents under statute | Defense: Demerol may have impaired capacity; police lacked founded suspicion, so consent was not voluntary | Held: Trial court’s credibility finding that Álvarez appeared competent and voluntarily consented is entitled to deference; capacity and founded suspicion not dispositive when consent is voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent voluntariness test; knowledge of right to refuse is a factor but not a prerequisite)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (U.S. 2016) (blood tests are searches; reasonableness inquiry and consideration of less‑intrusive alternatives)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (blood draws implicate Fourth Amendment; exigent‑circumstances analysis governs warrant exception)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (Fifth Amendment privilege does not protect physical evidence such as blood)
- U.S. v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2002) (consent searches support rule‑of‑law rationale; consent dispels inference of coercion)
- Pueblo en interés del menor N.O.R., 136 D.P.R. 949 (P.R. 1994) (Puerto Rico adopted Schneckloth; consent need not be informed to be valid)
- Pueblo v. Falú Martínez, 116 D.P.R. 828 (P.R. 1986) (blood/alcohol tests constitute searches; physical samples not covered by testimonial privilege)
- Pueblo v. López Colón, 200 D.P.R. 273 (P.R. 2018) (factors for assessing consent and presumption of invalidity for warrantless searches)