365 P.3d 628
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Officer stopped defendant shortly after tavern employee reported he drove away intoxicated; defendant displayed signs of impairment and was arrested for DUII.
- Defendant began hyperventilating during the stop; EMTs transported him to the hospital, where medical staff treated him for breathing issues.
- While at the hospital and objecting, defendant had a warrantless blood draw performed by a phlebotomist; resulting BAC was .14%.
- At suppression hearing the only disputed issue was whether exigent circumstances justified not obtaining a warrant for the blood draw.
- Officer testified obtaining a warrant (including preparing an affidavit and reviewing patrol video and witness statements) would likely take ~2.5 hours, risking substantial dissipation of alcohol (.015% per hour).
- Trial court denied suppression; defendant appealed, arguing both Oregon Article I, §9 and Fourth Amendment protections required a warrant because a telephonic warrant could have been obtained faster.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw | State: BAC dissipates and officer reasonably believed obtaining a warrant would take significantly longer, creating exigency | Defendant: Telephonic warrant procedure would have enabled obtaining a warrant significantly faster; officer misunderstood policy and could have secured help | Court held exigent circumstances existed; warrantless draw was justified under Oregon and federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Machuca, 347 Or. 644, 227 P.3d 729 (2010) (Oregon Supreme Court: evanescent BAC ordinarily creates exigency permitting warrantless blood draw, except in rare cases where a warrant could be obtained significantly faster)
- State v. Milligan, 304 Or. 659, 748 P.2d 130 (1988) (blood draw is a search implicating state and federal constitutional protections)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw upheld where exigent circumstances and medically reasonable procedures existed)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol is a factor but not a per se exigency; totality of circumstances governs whether warrant is required)
- State v. Martinez-Alvarez, 245 Or. App. 369, 263 P.3d 1091 (2011) (explains ‘‘rare case’’ exception: an objectively reasonable officer must recognize at the time that a warrant could be obtained significantly more quickly)