Metzner v. State, 462 S.W.3d 650

Metzner stopped at a Benton County sobriety checkpoint, exhibited signs of intoxication, refused portable and station breath tests, and was arrested for DWI.
At the station Metzner again refused a breath test; Deputy Hahn obtained a search warrant and blood was drawn, yielding a BAC of .15%.
Metzner moved to suppress the blood-test result, arguing Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-205(a) (refusal provision) prohibits any chemical test after a refusal, including by warrant.
The circuit court denied suppression, concluded the refusal provision bars only the warrantless implied-consent test, and convicted Metzner (bench trial) of DWI (second offense) and implied-consent refusal.
On appeal the sole issue was statutory interpretation: whether the statute’s phrase “no chemical test shall be given” precludes obtaining blood by search warrant after a refusal.
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding the refusal clause applies to tests requested by officers under the implied-consent scheme and does not forbid warrant-based testing.

Issue	Metzner's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 5-65-205(a)’s language “no chemical test shall be given” bars issuance/ use of a search warrant to compel blood testing after an arresting officer’s requested test is refused	The statute’s plain language forbids any chemical test after a refusal, so a warrant cannot be used to obtain blood	The refusal clause governs only the warrantless implied-consent test directed by officers; it does not restrict the State from obtaining a warrant	The court held the phrase applies to the officer-requested, warrantless implied-consent test authorized by §5-65-202 and does not prohibit obtaining a search warrant for blood testing

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (establishes expectation-of-privacy test and warrant requirement baseline)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (recognized exigency exception for blood draws where obtaining warrant would undermine evidence)
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (collection/testing of bodily fluids constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (Fourth Amendment requires a warrant when blood can reasonably be obtained without significantly undermining the search)
State v. Smith, 134 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (refusal clause construed to limit only officer-directed warrantless tests, not court-issued warrants)
State v. Collier, 612 S.E.2d 281 (Ga. 2005) (construed similar refusal language to bar warrant use to compel testing)