442 P.3d 158
Okla. Crim. App.2019Background
- On May 28, 2015 Dakota William Stewart lost control of his truck in a crash that killed two occupants; Stewart survived and was transported to an Oklahoma City trauma center.
- About three hours after the crash, a nurse drew Stewart’s blood at the direction of a state trooper without a warrant or Stewart’s consent; lab tests showed methamphetamine and marijuana.
- Troopers had found drugs and paraphernalia in Stewart’s vehicle at the crash scene.
- Stewart was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of first-degree manslaughter and one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine; sentenced to consecutive terms.
- On appeal Stewart challenged the warrantless blood draw as a Fourth Amendment violation; the district court had denied his suppression motion relying on Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 10-104(B) and Cripps v. State.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overruled Cripps (and related precedent insofar as inconsistent) and held that warrantless compelled blood draws require a magistrate’s individualized probable-cause finding or a demonstrable exigency; but applied the good-faith/statutory-reliance doctrine to deny suppression in Stewart’s case and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw following a fatal/great-bodily-injury crash violates the Fourth Amendment | Stewart: § 10-104(B)’s per se rule authorizing nonconsensual blood draws violates the Fourth Amendment because it dispenses with case-specific probable cause and exigency | State: § 10-104(B) supplies probable cause and exigency in fatal/serious-injury crashes (Cripps); officers reasonably relied on the statute | The court overruled Cripps and held that compulsory blood draws require either a magistrate-issued warrant based on individualized probable cause or a case-specific exigency; but suppression was denied under the good-faith/statutory-reliance doctrine because officers reasonably relied on the statute |
| Whether § 10-104(B) is facially unconstitutional for creating per se probable cause/exigency | Stewart: statute facially invalid because it eliminates individualized judicial determination | State: statute is narrow and constitutional; it effectively supplies the case-specific facts necessary | Court declined to declare the statute facially invalid; instead requires magistrate review or exigency in application, effectively limiting the statute’s operation |
| Whether evidence from a search conducted pursuant to a statute later found invalid must be excluded | Stewart: suppression required as remedy for Fourth Amendment violation | State: officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on an existing statute | Court: suppression not required under Illinois v. Krull where officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on statute; evidence admitted |
| Whether the error (if any) was harmless given other evidence | Stewart: blood results were central to DUI allegation | State: other facts (paraphernalia, admissions, chaotic crash) supported convictions | Several judges concurred that, even if the blood draw was unlawful on these facts, admitted blood evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (upheld a warrantless blood draw in a specific emergency where alcohol dissipation and facts justified immediate action)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (rejected per se exigency rule for alcohol-dissipation cases; exigency must be case-specific)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (exclusionary rule does not apply where officers reasonably rely on statute later held invalid)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (seriousness of an offense alone does not create exigent circumstances to bypass warrants)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (warrantless search reasonableness must be judged in the concrete factual context; state law cannot substitute for Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Cripps v. State, 387 P.3d 906 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (previously upheld § 10-104(B); overruled here insofar as inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment)