State v. Morales
2015 ND 230
| N.D. | 2015Background
- On Nov. 28, 2013 Morales drove into a parked gooseneck trailer in a single-car crash that killed his passenger; officers smelled alcohol on Morales at the scene.
- Morales was transported unconscious and intubated to the hospital; officers later arrested him and obtained a warrantless blood draw about two hours after he had driven.
- The blood test showed an unlawful blood-alcohol concentration; Morales was charged with causing death while operating a vehicle under the influence.
- Morales moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing the warrantless draw violated the Fourth Amendment; the district court denied suppression, finding exigent circumstances and alternatively relying on state implied-consent law.
- Morales conditionally pleaded guilty, preserving appeal of the suppression ruling; the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw | Fatal crash, officer observations of alcohol, limited staffing on Thanksgiving, and the two‑hour testing window made obtaining a warrant impracticable | McNeely precludes a categorical exigency from alcohol dissipation; evidence insufficient and delay/unnecessary | Exigent circumstances existed under the totality of the facts; warrantless draw was justified — affirmed |
| Whether N.D.C.C. §§ 39‑20‑01 and 39‑20‑03 are unconstitutional | (State) statutes support implied‑consent framework and compelled testing in appropriate circumstances | Morales challenged the constitutionality of the implied‑consent provisions | Court did not decide the constitutional challenge because it resolved the case on exigent‑circumstances grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw upheld under exigent circumstances in a hospitalized accident victim)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency; exigency is fact‑specific)
- State v. DeCoteau, 592 N.W.2d 579 (standard of review and exigent‑circumstances framework under North Dakota law)
- State v. Birchfield, 858 N.W.2d 302 (recognizes blood tests as searches implicating Fourth Amendment protections)
- City of Fargo v. Wonder, 651 N.W.2d 665 (warrantless searches are unreasonable unless an exception applies)