State v. Palmer, 190 A.3d 1009

On January 4, 2016 Palmer crossed the centerline in a 45-mph zone and collided head-on with another vehicle; three people suffered serious injuries and Palmer was entrapped and taken to the hospital.
While Palmer was en route to the hospital, an expired blood kit was used to draw a sample in the ambulance; the trial court suppressed results from that draw.
Deputy Pierce met Palmer at the hospital around 6:30 p.m.; while there Pierce overheard Palmer tell family he had consumed “a few beers with lunch.”
Pierce obtained an unexpired blood kit and, without seeking a warrant, arranged for a hospital phlebotomist to draw Palmer’s blood because Palmer was about to go into surgery and would soon be unavailable.
Palmer moved to suppress the hospital blood sample; the motion court denied suppression, finding probable cause and exigent circumstances. Palmer was later convicted of aggravated OUI and aggravated assault; this appeal challenges denial of suppression for the hospital blood draw.

Issue	Palmer's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Probable cause for blood draw	No probable cause existed to seize blood when Pierce obtained it	Evidence of a serious, at-fault collision plus Palmer’s admission he drank provided probable cause	Court: Probable cause existed based on collision causation and Palmer’s admission
Exigent circumstances to excuse warrant	Police had time to obtain a warrant (accident ~4:00 p.m.; Pierce arrived ~6:30 p.m.); surgery did not justify immediate, warrantless draw	Once Pierce heard the admission, very little time remained before surgery; delay would undermine efficacy due to alcohol dissipation and unavailability during surgery	Court: Exigent circumstances existed — a “now or never” situation justified the warrantless draw
Consent to hospital draw	Palmer did not validly consent (injured, could not sign; officer did not recall asking)	State did not rely on consent on appeal; suppression ruling on ambulance draw accepted	Court: State did not prove consent; but suppression challenge on hospital draw resolved by probable cause/exigency

State v. Libby, 453 A.2d 481 (Me. 1982) (taking blood for chemical analysis is a search requiring warrant or exception)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (alcohol dissipation does not create per se exigency; exigency assessed case-by-case)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draws permissible where exigent circumstances make obtaining warrant impractical)
State v. Arndt, 133 A.3d 587 (Me. 2016) (state must prove exigency by preponderance; totality-of-circumstances analysis)
Turner v. Secretary of State, 169 A.3d 931 (Me. 2017) (driver admission of drinking supports probable-cause finding)