State of New Hampshire v. David Almeida
2019-0603
| N.H. | Sep 29, 2021Background
- April 6, 2019: Bethlehem PD stopped and arrested David Almeida on suspicion of DUI after field sobriety tests.
- Almeida consented to a blood draw; the State obtained a blood sample and logged it into the State Forensic Laboratory system.
- On April 19, Almeida’s counsel withdrew consent, demanded return of the sample, and designated CG Labs to receive it; the lab refused to release the sample.
- On April 25 the State performed a BAC test on the retained sample; result = 0.157. Almeida was charged with DUI and moved to suppress the BAC results.
- Trial court granted suppression, concluding the BAC test was a search and that Almeida had withdrawn consent; State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Almeida's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether performing a BAC test on a blood sample obtained with consent constitutes a "search" under Part I, Art. 19 and the Fourth Amendment | Not a search: consented draw and drivers have diminished privacy in BAC | A BAC test is a search because blood contains extensive personal and genetic information | Held: Not a search under state or federal constitutions (reversed trial court) |
| Whether Almeida had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his BAC | No: driving reduces privacy; implied-consent scheme and precedent show no reasonable expectation | Yes: blood contains sensitive physiological and genetic data and withdrawal of consent should protect privacy | Held: No objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in BAC under these circumstances |
| Whether withdrawal of consent or statutory preservation rules prevented State testing the retained sample | State: once lawfully drawn and logged, testing is permitted; statutory preservation provisions do not create a constitutionally protected BAC interest | Almeida: withdrawal of consent and statutory scheme recognizing private-test rights create a continuing privacy interest | Held: Withdrawal/statutory arguments do not create a constitutionally protected privacy interest; even if consent were withdrawn, no search because no reasonable expectation of privacy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bazinet, 170 N.H. 680 (2018) (held BAC testing of hospital-drawn blood obtained for treatment was not a search)
- State v. Davis, 161 N.H. 292 (2010) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in BAC obtained during medical care in DUI investigation)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (DNA testing analysis limited to what the particular test reveals; broader testing raises additional privacy concerns)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (noted blood samples can reveal information beyond BAC, but analysis depends on what test is performed)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (chemical testing that reveals no information in which defendant has legitimate privacy interest is not a search)
- State v. Mfataneza, 172 N.H. 166 (2019) (discussing implied-consent law’s role in DUI prosecutions)
- State v. Randall, 930 N.W.2d 223 (2019) (Wis. S. Ct.: no privacy interest in alcohol amount of lawfully drawn blood)
- People v. Woodard, 909 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017) (once blood procured by consent, no reasonable expectation of privacy in BAC)