State v. Don Jacob Havatone, 241 Ariz. 506

On Sept. 17, 2012, Don Jacob Havatone caused a violent head‑on collision; officer M.P. smelled alcohol and observed open containers at the scene. Havatone was unconscious and airlifted to a Las Vegas hospital.
Arizona DPS directed Las Vegas authorities to obtain a nonconsensual blood draw without a warrant; the sample showed BAC 0.212.
Havatone moved to suppress the blood evidence as a warrantless search; the trial court denied the motion and the jury convicted; appellate court affirmed based on the good‑faith exception.
The State conceded § 28‑1321(C) (the “unconscious clause”) is unconstitutional as applied unless case‑specific exigent circumstances exist; no such exigency was shown in this record.
The Arizona Supreme Court holds the unconscious clause is only constitutional when case‑specific exigent circumstances make obtaining a warrant impracticable, and that the DPS practice here (routine directives to collect out‑of‑state blood from unconscious suspects) was not objectively reasonable and thus not protected by the good‑faith exception.
The Court remanded for the trial court to decide whether Arizona or Nevada law applies; if Nevada law applies, the trial court must decide whether Nevada would support the good‑faith exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.R.S. § 28‑1321(C) authorizes warrantless blood draws from unconscious DUI suspects	Havatone: the unconscious clause, as applied here, violates the Fourth Amendment absent case‑specific exigency	State: clause authorizes nonconsensual blood draws; at the time officers reasonably relied on it	Clause is unconstitutional as applied unless case‑specific exigent circumstances prevent obtaining a warrant
Whether McNeely/Schmerber permit per se exigency based solely on alcohol dissipation	Havatone: dissipation alone insufficient; exigency must be case‑specific	State: prior practice treated dissipation as a de facto exigency pre‑McNeely	Court: dissipation is not a per se exigency; exigency requires case‑by‑case totality analysis
Applicability of the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule	State: officers reasonably relied on then‑existing statute and practices, so evidence should be admitted	Havatone: DPS routine policy created systemic negligence; good‑faith exception fails	Under Arizona law, good‑faith exception does not apply because routine departmental policy disregarded case‑specific exigency requirement
Choice of law / remedy given out‑of‑state draw	Havatone: suppress evidence under Arizona law	State: Nevada law may differ and could validate the draw	Remand to trial court to determine whether Arizona or Nevada law governs; if Nevada governs, trial court must assess good‑faith under Nevada law

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (warrantless blood draws require case‑by‑case exigency analysis; natural dissipation of alcohol is not a per se exigency)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw upheld based on the special facts making a warrant impracticable)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (exigency inquiry requires case‑specific determinations; distinguishes breath from blood testing)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good‑faith exception applies when police reasonably rely on binding precedent)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (officers may rely on a statute unless it is so clearly unconstitutional that a reasonable officer should know otherwise)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule's purpose is deterrence; good‑faith reliance on warrant can preclude exclusion)
State v. Butler, 232 Ariz. 84 (2013) (Arizona law requires voluntariness or another exception such as exigency to justify warrantless blood draws)