State of Maine v. John E. Arndt, 133 A.3d 587

On April 11, 2014, a deputy arrested John E. Arndt for suspected DUI and transported him to the Bath Police Department to obtain a breath test rather than a closer station because of after-hours access.
The deputy attempted four breath tests on an Intoxilyzer between 6:02 p.m. and 6:24 p.m.; all attempts failed due to equipment problems unknown to the deputy.
Concerned that further delay would allow alcohol to metabolize and evidence to deteriorate, the deputy called a paramedic; blood was drawn at 6:45 p.m. without a warrant. Arndt signed a consent form but was not told he could have a physician draw his blood.
Arndt was charged with operating under the influence and violating a condition of release; he moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing the warrantless blood draw was unlawful.
The trial court denied suppression, a jury convicted Arndt, and he appealed claiming the warrantless blood draw lacked exigent circumstances and that any delay causing the exigency was created by law enforcement.

Issue	Arndt's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless blood draw was justified by exigent circumstances	McNeely means metabolization is not per se exigent; delay attributable to deputy transporting Arndt to Bath defeats exigency	Metabolization can create exigent circumstances case-by-case; delay was reasonable and not unlawful	Blood draw was justified: exigent circumstances existed given equipment failures and reasonable actions by deputy
Whether delay by law enforcement can be considered part of exigency analysis	Any exigency caused by police delay is barred under Dunlap	Dunlap bars only unreasonable law-enforcement delay; reasonable delay may be considered	Consideration of delay is permitted; only unreasonable delay defeats exigency—here delay was reasonable

Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (natural metabolization of alcohol not per se exigent; exigency assessed case-by-case)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (absent consent, warrant generally required for blood draw)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable except established exceptions)
State v. Dunlap, 395 A.2d 821 (Me. 1978) (exigent-circumstances exception unavailable where it arose from unreasonable law-enforcement delay)
State v. Rabon, 930 A.2d 268 (Me. 2007) (exigent circumstances require compelling need and insufficient time to obtain warrant)