People v. Smith, 254 P.3d 1158

Smith was involved in a single-car rollover on I-225; police suspected intoxication and learned Joshua was the driver.
Paras and a nurse drew blood from Smith at the hospital without Smith's consent or a warrant; Smith was not informed that blood would be drawn.
Three blood samples were drawn; Miranda rights were read after the first draw and Smith waived, then interrogated.
Tests were performed on the three samples, and the district court suppressed the results as a violation of the express consent statute.
The district court ruled the police needed Smith's consent before drawing blood under the express consent statute, and the People appealed for interlocutory review.
The court of appeals had previously in Maclaren held that consent was required; this opinion overrules Maclaren and holds no such extra-consent requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the express consent statute require prior consent before involuntary blood draw?	People argued Maclaren misread the statute; consent is not required when there is probable cause for vehicular assault and involuntary testing is permitted.	Smith argued the statute requires asking for consent prior to drawing blood in vehicular-assault cases as interpreted in Maclaren.	No extra-consent requirement; involuntary draw permitted with probable cause.
Is review proper under interlocutory rules or original jurisdiction for the suppression order?	People contends interlocutory review is appropriate under CAR 4.1(a).	Smith contends the suppression order rests on a non-constitutional statutory violation, limiting CAR 4.1(a) jurisdiction.	Court used original jurisdiction to review merits.
Do sections 42-4-1301.1(8) and 18-3-205 permit involuntary testing without consent when probable cause exists?	People argued the statute allows non-consensual testing.	Smith asserted the court of appeals in Maclaren required consent; the majority rejected that.	Statutes permit involuntary testing without consent with probable cause.

People v. Maclaren, 251 P.3d 578 (Colo. App. 2010) (held consent required prior to blood draw under express consent statute)
People v. Fidler, 175 Colo. 90 (Colo. 1971) (Fourth Amendment basis for suppression grounds)
People v. Sutherland, 683 P.2d 1192 (Colo. 1984) (established criteria for involuntary blood draws in alcohol offenses)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1984) (approved inference that blood draws for intoxication may occur without prior consent)
People v. Null, 233 P.3d 670 (Colo. 2010) (jurisdiction over suppression of statutory violations in express-consent context)