914 N.W.2d 422
Minn. Ct. App.2018Background
- Murray County deputy arrived at ATV crash scene; Atwood was injured, bleeding, smelled of alcohol, and taken to hospital.
- Hospital staff drew a blood sample and began a transfusion; the hospital retained a pre-transfusion vial.
- Deputy obtained a search warrant to seize the hospital's retained vial; lab testing later showed BAC 0.155.
- Atwood was charged with two counts of fourth-degree DWI and moved to suppress the blood vial and BAC results under Minnesota's physician–patient privilege, Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d).
- The district court granted suppression, treating the physical blood sample as “information” protected by the privilege; the State appealed pretrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a physical blood sample is “information” under Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d) | The State: a blood sample is a physical specimen, not "information," so the privilege does not apply | Atwood: prior dicta and cases suggest material items (like pills or blood) can fall within the privilege | The court held that a physical blood sample is not "information" under the statute and is not protected by the physician–patient privilege |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Staat, 291 Minn. 394 (describing factors for physician–patient privilege and discussing physical articles)
- State v. Heaney, 689 N.W.2d 168 (discussing admission of blood‑alcohol evidence and choice‑of‑law analysis)
- State v. Ault, 478 N.W.2d 797 (chemical test suppression and critical‑impact test for pretrial appeals)
- State v. deLottinville, 890 N.W.2d 116 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Azure, 621 N.W.2d 721 (statutory interpretation principles)