State v. Romano, 785 S.E.2d 168

Defendant Joseph Romano was found near his SUV, vomiting, belligerent, and drinking from a large bottle of rum; officers observed signs of intoxication and a portable alcosensor indicated impairment.
Officers called an ambulance; Defendant was transported to the hospital, became combative, and hospital staff sedated him. Police did not obtain a warrant before hospital treatment.
A treating nurse drew blood for medical purposes and took an extra vial; Sgt. Fowler accepted the excess blood for law‑enforcement testing after confirming Defendant was unconscious and attempting (unsuccessfully) to advise him of implied‑consent rights.
Fowler never attempted to obtain a search warrant, though the magistrate’s office was a few miles away and officers were available; Fowler relied on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20‑16.2(b) (unconscious persons exception to implied‑consent notice/consent requirement).
Trial court found Defendant was rendered unconscious by medical sedation, never consented to the blood draw, officers could have obtained a warrant, and no exigency justified a warrantless search; the trial court suppressed the blood evidence.
State appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding the warrantless seizure was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Missouri v. McNeely.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether taking and using excess blood drawn for medical treatment without a warrant was a lawful warrantless search	Fowler lawfully relied on N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20‑16.2(b) for unconscious persons and did not need a warrant	The blood was seized without consent or warrant; Defendant was unconscious and could not waive rights, so seizure violated Fourth Amendment	Suppression affirmed: warrantless seizure not justified; no per se statutory exception overrides McNeely; search unreasonable
Whether exigent circumstances justified bypassing a warrant	State contended exigency (metabolization, need for evidence) justified warrantless acquisition	Defendant (and trial court) argued no case‑specific exigency shown; magistrate available and officers could have obtained a warrant	Court held McNeely requires case‑by‑case exigency; here no exigency shown and officers could have gotten a warrant
Whether independent source or good‑faith exceptions cure the illegality	State argued evidence could be admitted under independent source or good‑faith exceptions	Defendant argued nurse acted with knowledge of police intent, so not independent; no warrant was ever sought for good faith to attach	Court rejected both: nurse not independent source; good‑faith inapplicable because no warrant was sought

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable except for narrowly defined exceptions)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (blood draws in DUI cases require case‑by‑case exigency analysis; no per se exigency from alcohol metabolization)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule where officers rely objectively reasonably on a magistrate’s warrant)
Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) (invasions of bodily integrity implicate heightened privacy interests)
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n., 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (intrusive bodily searches implicate strong privacy interests)
State v. Hollingsworth, 77 N.C. App. 36 (1985) (prior N.C. appellate use of unconscious‑person statutory provision to justify blood testing)
State v. Garcia‑Lorenzo, 110 N.C. App. 319 (1993) (same)