People v. Hyde
393 P.3d 962
| Colo. | 2017Background
- Shortly after a single-vehicle crash, Oliver Hyde was found unconscious, taken to a hospital, and a warrantless blood draw was taken ~2 hours after the accident; BAC = 0.06.
- Aurora PD had probable cause to suspect DUI; Hyde was unconscious so officers did not obtain contemporaneous consent or a warrant and did not rely on exigent circumstances.
- Hyde moved to suppress the blood-test result as an unreasonable, warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment; the trial court granted suppression.
- The People appealed interlocutorily; the Colorado Supreme Court reviewed de novo the legal question whether the blood draw was constitutional.
- Key statutory backdrop: Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1301.1) deems drivers to have consented to BAC testing and specifically provides that an unconscious driver “shall be tested.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hyde) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious driver violated the Fourth Amendment | Warrantless, non-consensual blood draw was an unreasonable search; statutory consent is not effective for an unconscious person who cannot revoke | Statutory (expressed/implied) consent from driving in Colorado satisfies consent exception; no warrant required where probable cause exists | The court held the blood draw was constitutional: statutory consent satisfied the Fourth Amendment consent exception and reversed suppression |
| Whether drivers have a constitutional right to refuse BAC testing | Hyde: unconscious driver should be afforded the opportunity to refuse once conscious | People: there is no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing; refusal consequences are statutory, not constitutional | Court held there is no constitutional right to refuse a BAC test and the statute validly conditions driving on consent to testing |
| Whether the McNeely/Schaufele line requires a warrant absent exigency even where implied consent exists | Hyde: McNeely and Schaufele suggest warrants are needed absent exigency; statutory consent cannot replace a contemporaneous voluntary choice | People: McNeely addressed exigency only; Birchfield approves implied-consent regimes imposing civil/evidentiary penalties, so statutory consent can justify a warrantless draw | Court distinguished exigency doctrine; held McNeely does not foreclose relying on implied/expressed consent under Birchfield and that Schaufele’s plurality reasoning is inapposite here |
| Equal Protection challenge to treating unconscious drivers differently | Hyde: statutory scheme treats unconscious drivers worse by denying chance to refuse | People: classification is rationally related to legitimate interest in obtaining evidence from drivers who cannot otherwise demonstrate impairment | Court applied rational-basis review and upheld the statute as rational and not arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw upheld under exigent circumstances in DUI crash context)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create categorical exigency; exigency must be fact-specific)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (approves implied-consent statutes that impose civil/evidentiary penalties; warrants blood tests cannot be justified as search-incident-to-arrest)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent must be voluntary under totality of circumstances to satisfy Fourth Amendment)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (no constitutional right to refuse chemical tests; evidentiary consequences permissible)
- Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (implied consent may be inferred from context in highly regulated settings; contextual inference of consent discussed)
- People v. Schaufele, 325 P.3d 1060 (Colo. case discussing warrant/exigency and express-consent statute; plurality language referenced by trial court)