State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish
2015 Minn. LEXIS 470
Minn.2015Background
- Stavish charged with multiple offenses arising from a single-vehicle rollover (death and serious injuries).
- Stavish moved to suppress a blood-alcohol result obtained after the crash; no warrant or consent.
- District court denied suppression; McNeely analysis applicable; Shriner abrogated prior rule permitting warrantless blood draws absent per se exigency.
- Blood draw occurred at 11:18 p.m.; BAC tested at 0.20; 70 minutes remained in the 2-hour window for testing.
- State argued exigent circumstances justified warrantless draw given Stavish’s admitted driving, serious injuries, and possible airlift; hospital location and privacy laws limited information gathering to verify transport plans.
- Court of Appeals had held exigency justified; State sought review to affirm on exigency grounds and avoid suppression.
- Two pretrial orders: initial suppression denied; later order suppressed; State appealing the suppression ruling.
- The State must show suppression would have critical impact on its prosecution (charges 609.21(3) and 169A.20(1)(5) hinged on 0.08+ within 2 hours).
- This appeal concerns whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw under McNeely and Schmerber, and whether, even if exigence existed, the record supports it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression has critical impact on prosecution | Stavish cannot challenge critical impact; expungement would affect key counts | Exclusion of BAC undermines essential elements of two charges | Yes; critical impact established because key charges require BAC 0.08+ within 2 hours |
| Whether the blood draw without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Exigency existed due to emergency medical treatment and death/injury | No exigency; telephonic warrant could have been obtained within 2 hours | Exigent circumstances existed; warrantless blood draw justified under totality of circumstances |
| Whether the good-faith exception applies | State relied on binding pre-McNeely precedent | Good-faith exception should apply to preexisting precedent | Addressed but not reached due to exigency determination; majority did not rely on good-faith exception |
| Whether Minn. Stat. 169A.20(1)(5) creates unconstitutional statutory exigency | Statute merely defines impairment with 0.08 within 2 hours | Statute attempts to create per se exigency | Not unconstitutional; statute compatible with totality-of-circumstances analysis |
| Whether hospital proximity and privacy laws affected exigency analysis | Privacy laws prevented obtaining hospital confirmation of blood draw logistics | Even with privacy limits, exigency could be shown | Court found exigency supported despite privacy-law limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (exigent circumstances allowed warrantless blood draw where delay would destroy evidence)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (case-by-case totality-of-circumstances; no per se exigency; warrants preferred if feasible)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (reasonableness standard; warrantless entry under emergent circumstances)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (probable cause and particularity; warrantless searches allowed under exigent circumstances)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (exigent circumstances framework for searches; totality-of-circumstances)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (heavy burden on government to show exigent circumstances overcome unreasonableness)
- State v. Aguirre, 295 N.W.2d 79 ( Minn. 1980) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances as prerequisite for nonconsensual blood draw)
- State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 2008) (pre-McNeely framework allowing warrantless draw under certain conditions)