United States v. Stephonze Blakeney
949 F.3d 851
4th Cir.2020Background:
- On June 5, 2017 Blakeney’s car crossed a raised median on Suitland Parkway and struck an oncoming vehicle; his passenger died.
- US Park Police on scene noticed a strong odor of alcohol in Blakeney’s vehicle; Blakeney was combative and taken to the hospital.
- A magistrate judge issued a telephonic warrant authorizing a blood draw at ~12:28 AM; blood drawn at 12:44 AM later showed 0.07% BAC.
- Three weeks later officers obtained a warrant to download the vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR); EDR data showed speeds of ~68–79 mph before impact.
- Blakeney was indicted for homicide by motor vehicle while impaired, driving without a license, and reckless driving; he moved to suppress the blood-toxicology and EDR evidence.
- The district court denied suppression (probable cause and particularity satisfied; alternatively officers relied on warrants in objective good faith under United States v. Leon), and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for blood-draw warrant | Steinheimer misstated facts (PCP odor, location of alcohol); after excising false statements no probable cause to draw blood | Severity of crash (jumping raised median), odor of alcohol in passenger compartment, and Blakeney’s combativeness together supplied a fair probability of intoxication | Probable cause existed; even if misstatements excised, remaining facts suffice; alternatively Leon good-faith applies |
| Probable cause for EDR warrant | Affidavit only described an accident and did not establish a fair probability the EDR contained evidence of a crime | Description of severe driver error (crossing raised median into oncoming traffic causing fatality) made it reasonably likely EDR would contain relevant crash data | Probable cause existed to search EDR for pre-crash data |
| Particularity of blood-draw warrant | Oral telephonic authorization failed to specify the offense or limit the search; could permit fishing (e.g., unrelated medical tests) | Warrant, read in context, plainly authorized drawing and alcohol testing of Blakeney’s blood; a reasonable officer would so construe it | Warrant was sufficiently particular; even if arguably deficient, Leon good-faith exception prevents suppression |
| Particularity of EDR warrant | Warrant did not name a specific crime and thus failed to narrowly describe items to be seized | Warrant identified the specific vehicle, the EDR device, and the precise data to be seized (speed, brake status, RPM, diagnostic codes) | Warrant met particularity by describing the device and data; Leon alternative applies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause is a practical, common-sense inquiry)
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (Fourth Amendment particularity requires place and things; need not state basis for probable cause)
- United States v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir.) (when a warrant identifies a specific crime that generates distinctive evidence, that can satisfy particularity)
- United States v. Dargan, 738 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2013) (commonsense reading of warrant scope; particularity analysis)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (presence of contraband in vehicle can give rise to probable cause as to any occupant)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (officers need not rule out innocent explanations to establish probable cause)
- United States v. Bosyk, 933 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2019) (probable cause standard and deference to magistrate)