State v. Dahlquist
231 N.C. App. 100
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Officer at a checkpoint with a BAT mobile encountered Defendant, who smelled of alcohol and failed field sobriety tests.
- Defendant admitted drinking and was taken to the BAT mobile for a breath test, which he refused.
- Defendant was transported to Mercy Hospital for blood testing without a warrant or consent after refusal of the breath test.
- Defendant moved to suppress the compelled blood samples as warrantless searches; trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the court applied totality-of-the-circumstances review to determine exigent circumstances and affirmed the denial of suppression.
- The court discussed the possibility of telephonic/video warrants under NC law and McNeely’s restrictions on automatic exigency found in blood draws.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless blood draw | Dahlquist | Dahlquist | Exigency existed; warrantless blood draw affirmed |
| Whether magistrate-based warrants could be secured promptly via telecommunications | State | Dahlquist | Video/telephonic warrants permissible; better practice encouraged |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fletcher, 202 N.C. App. 107 (N.C. App. 2010) (blood draw is a search requiring warrant absent exigent circumstances)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2013) (blood alcohol dissipation alone not per se exigency; totality of circumstances governs warrant exception)
- State v. Salinas, 366 N.C. 119 (N.C. 2012) (standard for appellate review of suppression orders; findings must be supported by evidence)