State v. Blancas, 515 P.3d 718

Around 1:20 AM on April 14, 2019, Idaho State Police stopped Jesus Blancas for traffic violations; he exhibited signs of intoxication and failed field sobriety tests.
Officer Elverud obtained four breath samples; only one was valid (BAC .234). Blancas was arrested for DUI and refused a blood draw.
At ~2:53 AM Elverud called the on‑call prosecutor about a warrant; the prosecutor instructed him to contact the on‑call magistrate and said to draw blood on exigency grounds if the magistrate could not be reached.
Elverud attempted to reach the on‑call magistrate by phone (three calls between ~3:03–3:06 AM), then had hospital staff draw Blancas’ blood at 3:08 AM, which showed BAC .249.
Blancas moved to suppress the blood result; the district court denied suppression. Blancas conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the denial of the suppression motion and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a warrantless blood draw was justified by exigent circumstances	State: delay (defendant’s conduct), magistrate unavailability, and alcohol dissipation created a "now or never" exigency	Blancas: high BAC and predictable, gradual dissipation plus ability to obtain a warrant meant no exigency	Held: No exigency; State failed to prove no time to obtain a warrant; warrantless draw violated the Fourth Amendment
Whether the reason a magistrate is unavailable is a preeminent factor (Chernobieff I)	State: Chernobieff I dicta was disavowed and availability is one factor among many	Blancas: State must show why magistrate was unavailable and good cause for unavailability	Held: The Chernobieff I statement is dicta; reason for unavailability is not a preeminent factor—totality of circumstances controls
Whether delay caused by defendant’s "playing games" may be considered in exigency analysis	State: defendant’s intentional delay is part of totality and supports exigency	Blancas: delay from exercise of rights should not be weighed against him per Chernobieff I	Held: Court rejects needing to parse legitimate vs illegitimate delay—totality of circumstances (including delay) is relevant; Chernobieff I to the extent it limits consideration is overruled

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (natural alcohol dissipation does not create per se exigency; totality test required)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (exigency exception permits warrantless searches when immediate action is objectively reasonable)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (exigencies may justify warrantless searches in appropriate circumstances)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable)
State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 (breath/blood tests are searches under the Fourth Amendment)
State v. Chernobieff, 161 Idaho 537 (prior exigency analysis discussed—statement about magistrate unavailability later treated as dicta)
Chernobieff v. State, 168 Idaho 98 (clarified/disavowed dicta from earlier Chernobieff decision)
State v. Smith, 168 Idaho 463 (exigency doctrine and totality-of-circumstances review)