State of Minnesota v. Adam Blaine Davis, A16-0477

Late-night two-vehicle collision; appellant (Davis) was the southbound driver, B.O. (other driver) died from her injuries; crash occurred ~10:30 p.m.
Eyewitness P.G. reported Davis was "not making much sense," slurred speech, and told P.G. he was "innocent"; officers and ambulance personnel smelled alcohol on Davis.
Davis was seriously injured and being treated in the ER; hospital staff prepared to airlift him out of state; nurse drew two blood samples at 11:45 and 11:50 p.m. (≈75 minutes after the crash) at law enforcement request without a warrant.
Chemical testing later showed amphetamine, methamphetamine, and morphine; no alcohol detected in chemical analysis.
State charged Davis with criminal vehicular homicide (negligent operation while under the influence). Davis moved to suppress the warrantless blood draw; district court initially granted suppression but after reconsideration denied it; Davis stipulated to a bench resolution and was convicted and sentenced to 75 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for criminal vehicular homicide	State: facts (fatal crash, eyewitness observations, officers smelled alcohol) gave fair probability Davis committed the crime	Davis: insufficient evidence of negligence at time of draw; reliance on later police report improper	Court: Probable cause existed based on scene observations, witness reports, and odor of alcohol despite later report issues
Exigent circumstances to permit warrantless blood draw	State: serious injury, imminent airlift, multiple medical staff, limited time within 2-hour window justified no-warrant draw	Davis: police had time to get telephonic warrant; no showing blood would be unobtainable later	Court: Exigency present — imminent airlift and active medical care made delay to obtain warrant unreasonable
Necessity of obtaining within two-hour alcohol window	State: BAC within two hours affects statutory theory; timely sample important	Davis: gross-negligence theory did not require two-hour BAC window	Held: BAC evidence relevant to which statutory theory applied; urgency to capture alcohol level supported exigency
Availability of telephonic warrant	Davis: officers could have obtained telephonic warrant instead of ordering blood	State: officer believed no time; Stavish factors do not require considering telephonic warrant availability	Held: Court accepted officers’ assessment that delay risked losing opportunity to obtain sample; telephonic-warrant argument rejected

State v. Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 2015) (list of factors supporting exigent circumstances for warrantless blood draws in serious-injury/fatal crashes)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol in bloodstream does not create per se exigency; exigency must be assessed case-by-case)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (delay to obtain warrant can result in destruction of evidence by metabolization of alcohol)
State v. Speak, 339 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. 1983) (probable cause for criminal negligence may be shown by a fatal accident plus evidence the driver was drinking and inattentive)
State v. Fawcett, 884 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. 2016) (probable cause may be established even if later testing shows different substances; focus is on information available at the time of the search)
State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 2016) (standard of review for suppression rulings and state burden to show exigent circumstances)