State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes
364 P.3d 1134
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- In April 2012 Daniel Reyes fled from police, crashed, and was taken to a hospital for non-life-threatening injuries; Officer Marquis met him there and observed signs of intoxication.
- Marquis advised Reyes of Miranda rights, placed him under arrest, read the implied-consent (Admin Per Se) admonition, and Reyes asked for an attorney and refused consent to a blood draw.
- Hospital staff drew blood for medical treatment; Marquis provided two vials so law enforcement could obtain a portion of the medical draw.
- Marquis did not seek a telephonic search warrant, testifying he knew he could obtain a sample from the medical draw though there was time to seek a warrant.
- The analyzed blood showed a BAC of .195; Reyes moved to suppress the blood evidence as the product of an unconstitutional warrantless search.
- The trial court denied suppression, finding exigent circumstances based on alcohol dissipation and that the officer reasonably relied on then-binding Arizona precedent; Reyes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless seizure of blood drawn during medical treatment must be suppressed because no exigent circumstances existed | Reyes: McNeely rejects alcohol dissipation as a per se exigency; officer acknowledged time to get a warrant, so no exigency | State: Under Arizona precedent (Cocio and progeny) the evanescent nature of alcohol in the blood constitutes exigent circumstances for the medical-draw exception | The court held exigent circumstances were adequately established for purposes of applying the good-faith exception to binding Arizona precedent |
| Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when officers rely on binding precedent that was later abrogated | Reyes: Law was unsettled; officer could not reasonably rely on precedent | State: Officer reasonably and in good faith relied on controlling Arizona case law (Cocio and subsequent decisions) | Held that the officer reasonably relied on existing Arizona precedent, so suppression was not required under the good-faith exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless medical blood draw upheld where officer reasonably believed exigency existed due to alcohol dissipation)
- State v. Cocio, 147 Ariz. 277 (Ariz. 1985) (Arizona medical-draw exception requires probable cause, exigent circumstances, and medical purpose; held alcohol dissipation is an exigency)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream is not a per se exigency that always obviates the warrant requirement)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule has a good-faith exception for searches conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent)