State v. Kelly, 469 P.3d 851

On Nov. 8, 2016 defendant was in a single-vehicle rollover; officer smelled alcohol and observed slurred speech and other indicia of impairment.
Medical personnel at OHSU performed a medical blood draw on defendant as part of treatment and tested it for BAC before the investigating officer arrived.
Officer Snider arrived ~7:20 p.m., advised defendant of Miranda rights, arrested him for DUII, read implied-consent warnings, and asked for consent to a blood draw; defendant refused.
Without obtaining a warrant, Snider requested a second (forensic) blood draw at 8:28 p.m.; he later obtained a warrant the next day to test that forensic sample. The hospital test results were known to staff and later learned by Snider.
Defendant moved to suppress the results of the warrantless forensic draw, arguing no exigency because the hospital had already preserved and tested blood; the trial court denied suppression, defendant entered a conditional plea, and appealed.
The court of appeals reversed: the state failed to prove exigent circumstances justified the second, warrantless draw given the existing medical blood draw and lack of evidence showing the medical sample was unavailable or unreliable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exigent circumstances under Article I, § 9 justified a warrantless, unconsented forensic blood draw when a hospital had already drawn and tested blood	The hospital draw did not negate exigency because medical testing may not preserve admissible forensic evidence: chain-of-custody, different/less-accurate tests, sample depletion, preservatives/adulteration, witness/confrontation issues; plus a second draw can show BAC trend	The hospital draw preserved defendant’s BAC and its testing produced evidence usable at trial; the state offered no evidence an objectively reasonable officer would have doubted availability, reliability, or admissibility of the medical sample or that a warrant could not be obtained	Reversed: state failed to meet its burden to show exigency. Because the record lacked evidence an objectively reasonable officer would have believed a warrant could not be obtained or that the medical sample would be unavailable/unreliable, the warrantless forensic draw was not justified. Case remanded for plea withdrawal.

State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 (reaffirmed that evaporating BAC ordinarily creates exigency for warrantless blood draws, but rare cases may permit a warrant)
State v. Milligan, 304 Or 659 (blood draw is a search and seizure; recognized dissipation of BAC as source of exigency)
State v. Ritz, 361 Or 781 (state must show obtaining a warrant would have delayed preservation of BAC; absence of such proof undermines exigency claim)
State v. Martinez-Alvarez, 245 Or App 369 (explains the "rare case" exception and that the officer’s contemporaneous, objective perspective governs whether a warrant could have been obtained faster)
State v. Perryman, 275 Or App 631 (characterizes blood draw as search/seizure and discusses exigent-circumstances framework)