State v. Fischer
2016 SD 12
| S.D. | 2016Background
- On July 8, 2013, Fischer drove through an intersection at high speed, striking a boat, multiple vehicles, and two pedestrians, killing both victims and creating a large crime scene with extensive debris.
- Deputies on scene detected the odor of alcohol on Fischer; he was extricated and transported by ambulance to Wagner Hospital; an air ambulance was dispatched to transfer him to Sioux Falls.
- At Wagner Hospital, Dr. Pinter ordered a blood draw for medical treatment purposes; that sample later showed a .274 BAC. While Fischer was still at Wagner, Deputy DeBuhr directed a second blood draw before the helicopter transport; that sample showed .232 BAC and cannabinoids.
- Fischer was indicted on multiple counts including DUI-related offenses and vehicular homicide and moved to suppress both blood draws as Fourth Amendment/SD Constitution violations.
- The circuit court denied suppression: it held the hospital-ordered draw was private medical action (not subject to Fourth Amendment), and the deputy-ordered draw was justified by exigent circumstances given the serious crash, limited law-enforcement resources, imminent air transport, and risk that medical treatment or transport would dissipate or affect evidence.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed, applying a totality-of-the-circumstances exigency analysis and distinguishing medical-only draws from government searches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hospital-ordered blood draw is a governmental search subject to the Fourth Amendment | State: hospital draw was legitimately medical and not government action | Fischer: hospital draw had a dual medical/investigatory purpose and was effectively government action due to local police-hospital ties | Held: Hospital draw was private medical action; Fourth Amendment protections did not apply and suppression not warranted |
| Whether deputy-ordered blood draw without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | State: exigent circumstances justified warrantless draw (totality of facts) | Fischer: McNeely bars using alcohol dissipation alone; no exigency because warrants could be obtained quickly | Held: Exigent circumstances existed under totality (serious crash, active scene, imminent airlift, limited personnel); warrantless draw was reasonable |
| Whether Schmerber/McNeely control the analysis | State: Schmerber’s facts remain valid under totality test; McNeely requires case-by-case analysis | Fischer: McNeely effectively rejects Schmerber’s rationale for warrantless blood draws | Held: McNeely reaffirmed totality approach; Schmerber fits as special facts—court applied totality and found exigency |
| Whether police-created exigency defeats the exception | Fischer: officers’ failure to mobilize more help created exigency and cannot justify warrantless search | State: record shows limited available resources and reasonable allocation to scene duties | Held: No evidence of negligent creation of exigency; officers reasonably prioritized scene management and medical response |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (private-party searches not governed by Fourth Amendment)
- Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (searches by private individuals not acting as government agents are not Fourth Amendment searches)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood draws evaluated under totality of circumstances; natural dissipation of alcohol is a factor but not a per se exigency)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (upheld warrantless blood test under exigent-circumstances analysis given particular facts)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (standards for exigent-circumstances exception and limits on police-created exigency)
- State v. Fierro, 853 N.W.2d 235 (S.D. 2014) (discusses warrant requirement and exigent-circumstances exceptions under South Dakota law)