State v. Adams, 447 P.3d 1142

Background

Police arrested Brian Adams for DWI after observations (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, poor field‑sobriety performance) and his admission of drinking and taking prescription drugs; Adams consented to a blood draw under the Implied Consent Act.
Hospital employee Danica Atwood, an EMT‑basic and emergency department technician who had drawn blood routinely at the hospital and been supervised until deemed competent, drew Adams’s blood using an SLD‑approved kit; SLD testing showed no alcohol but metabolites for marijuana, benzodiazepines, and synthetic opioids.
Adams moved to suppress the blood test results under NMSA 1978 § 66‑8‑103, which limits who may withdraw blood for Implied Consent tests to physicians, licensed nurses, or laboratory technicians/technologists employed by a hospital or physician; the magistrate denied suppression, he reserved appeal rights when pleading no contest, and the district court later granted suppression.
The district court relied on State v. Garcia, holding an EMT license alone does not qualify an EMT to draw blood under the Implied Consent Act, and concluded Atwood (an EMT) was unauthorized, excluding the test results.
The State filed an interlocutory appeal under § 39‑3‑3(B)(2), certifying the excluded evidence was substantial proof of a material fact; the Court of Appeals considered (1) whether the State could appeal and (2) whether Atwood qualified under § 66‑8‑103 based on training/experience.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State had a statutory right to interlocutory appeal under § 39‑3‑3(B)(2)	State: certification satisfied and blood results were substantial proof of a material fact	Adams: State could convict without blood results (witness testimony suffices)	Appeal allowed: blood results were "important or significant" and met the statute's standard
Whether Garcia bars all EMTs from qualifying under § 66‑8‑103	State: Garcia only held EMT license alone is insufficient; it did not preclude EMTs with additional training from qualifying as lab technicians/technologists	Adams: Garcia is outcome‑determinative; EMT status precludes authorization to draw for Implied Consent tests	Garcia not dispositive; facts distinguishable and did not address EMTs with additional phlebotomy training
Whether Atwood qualified as a "laboratory technician" or phlebotomist under § 66‑8‑103 based on training/experience	State: Atwood’s hospital training, supervised practice, high volume of draws, and use of SLD kit qualify her as a lab technician/phlebotomist employed by a hospital	Adams: Atwood lacked formal lab title, phlebotomy certification, and did not work in a lab or perform analyses	Held: An individual qualifies as a laboratory technician if the hospital/physician has determined, via training/experience, that the person is competent to draw blood; Atwood met that standard
Whether exclusion of the blood results was an abuse of discretion	State: district court misapprehended law by mechanically applying Garcia and excluding despite Atwood’s demonstrated qualifications	Adams: district court correctly followed Garcia and statutory categories	Held: exclusion was an abuse of discretion; reverse and remand for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

State v. Garcia, 370 P.3d 791 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (held EMT license alone does not qualify an EMT to withdraw blood under the Implied Consent Act)
State v. Wiberg, 754 P.2d 529 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (statutory restriction on who may draw blood serves to protect subject safety and sample reliability)
State v. Mendez, 211 P.3d 206 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (excluded evidence must be important or significant to permit State's interlocutory appeal)
State v. Gurule, 252 P.3d 823 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (elements and "impaired to the slightest degree" standard in DWI prosecutions)
State v. Romero, 999 P.2d 1038 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (discusses standards governing State appeals from suppression/exclusion orders)