State of Delaware v. Michael W. Durham
1503018070
| Del. Ct. Com. Pl. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- On Mar. 28, 2015 Durham was arrested after a single-vehicle crash and field sobriety testing; he was transported to the New Castle County Police Station.
- Officer Sherwood's testimony conflicted with Durham's about whether the officer read the implied-consent penalty provision before seeking breath or blood samples; the officer could not recall the sequence.
- Officer checked both the "Implied Consent" and "Probable Cause" boxes on the Implied Consent form and a phlebotomist drew Durham’s blood after a warrant was signed by Justice of the Peace Court 11.
- Durham moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing the officer violated 21 Del. C. § 2742 by reading the penalty provision and then proceeding with testing after a refusal.
- The court reviewed Delaware implied-consent law and controlling precedents and found no Fourth Amendment violation; it denied the suppression motion with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Durham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reading the §2742 penalty provision and then obtaining chemical testing after a refusal requires suppression of results | Even if §2742 was not followed, §2750 allows admissibility absent a Fourth Amendment violation | §2742 forbids testing after an informed refusal; results should be excluded | Denied — §2750 renders statutory failure to follow §2742 immaterial to admissibility so long as no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Whether the blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment (probable cause/force/qualified personnel) | Officer had probable cause; blood drawn by qualified medical personnel; no excessive force | Argues statutory violation and testimonial conflict undermine admissibility | Denied — record shows probable cause, no coercion, and qualified phlebotomist; Fourth Amendment not implicated |
| Whether factual uncertainty about when the penalty provision was read matters | Sequence ambiguity irrelevant under §2750 when Fourth Amendment satisfied | Sequence matters under §2742 and supports suppression | Sequence immaterial — §2750 controls and makes the timing dispute legally irrelevant |
| Whether a warrant or exigency was required for nonconsensual blood and whether it was satisfied here | When blood is nonconsensual, warrant or exigency required; here a warrant was obtained | Contends statutory refusal should preclude testing regardless of warrant | Denied — warrant was obtained and Fourth Amendment requirements met; results admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Seth v. State, 592 A.2d 436 (Del. 1991) (§2750 renders inadmissibility arguments based solely on failure to inform immaterial where Fourth Amendment not implicated)
- State v. Flonnory, 109 A.3d 1060 (Del. 2015) (warrantless blood draws require totality-of-circumstances exigency analysis under McNeely)
- Lefebvre v. State, 19 A.3d 287 (Del. 2011) (probable cause standard for DUI arrests under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d 926 (Del. 1993) (probable cause discussion and everyday-facts standard)