State v. Martines
331 P.3d 105
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Martines was observed driving erratically, leading to his arrest by a state trooper.
- A warrant was obtained to extract a blood sample but did not authorize testing of that sample.
- The blood sample was drawn and tested for alcohol and drugs; results showed BAC of .121 and presence of diazepam.
- Martines was charged with felony DUI; he moved to suppress drug testing evidence, arguing lack of probable cause for testing.
- The State argued testing the seized blood is not a separate search and requires no additional warrant, likening blood to personal effects.
- The court held that testing the blood is a separate search and the warrant did not authorize testing; the test results should have been suppressed, and the conviction reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is testing a lawfully seized blood sample a separate search requiring a warrant? | Martines: testing requires separate warrant due to privacy interests. | State: testing is allowed with the original blood draw; blood is property, not a search for testing purposes. | Yes; testing is a separate search requiring a warrant. |
| Did Gregory authorize testing of a blood sample without an independent warrant in this context? | Martines: Gregory does not permit unfettered testing of a blood sample for unrelated information. | State: Gregory supports testing without independent warrant when DNA or related analyses are involved. | Gregory does not answer testing of blood as a separate search; testing here requires a warrant. |
| If testing is a search, was the warrant sufficient to authorize testing for alcohol and drugs? | Martines: warrant absent explicit authorization to test; testing was unlawful. | State: warrant language may be curable by incorporation; testing could be implied. | The warrant did not authorize testing; testing was warrantless. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cheatam, 150 Wn.2d 626 (2003) (property exposure limits privacy interests after lawful inventory)
- State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759 (2006) (DNA testing within lawfully obtained blood; no independent warrant for comparison)
- State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354 (2007) (saliva/privacy concerns; does not extend privacy interests as in DNA)
- Skinner v. Ry. Lab. Exec.’s Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (two invasions: sampling and chemical analysis reveal private facts)
- Snyder v. United States, 852 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1988) (seizure and testing viewed as single event; limitations noted)
- Day v. Day, 161 Wn.2d 889 (2007) (presumption of warrantless search; exceptions not claimed here)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (requires warrants for searches in criminal investigations; tailored searches)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood draw as a search; limits of bodily intrusions and testing)
- Myrick, 102 Wn.2d 506 (1984) (privacy interests in bodily intrusions under Washington Constitution)