2021 COA 1
Colo. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Charles Raider was found in the driver’s seat of a running car, with bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol; he refused field tests and later refused chemical testing.
- Officers learned Raider had multiple prior DUI convictions, obtained a search warrant for a blood draw, and forced the draw at a hospital using four-point restraints and officer assistance.
- Blood testing showed a BAC of .188 and active marijuana components; Raider was charged with felony DUI (multiple priors) and obstructing a peace officer.
- Raider moved to suppress the blood-test results; the trial court denied suppression, the jury convicted, and Raider appealed.
- The Court of Appeals addressed a question of first impression under Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute (§ 42-4-1301.1): whether a warrant can authorize a forced blood draw when the officer lacks probable cause to believe one of the statute’s four enumerated offenses was committed.
- The court reversed Raider’s convictions, holding the forced draw violated the statute and suppressing the test results; the case was remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers may force a blood draw by obtaining a warrant when a driver refuses testing but officers lack probable cause the driver committed one of the four enumerated offenses | A warrant satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements; the statute is rooted in implied consent and doesn’t preclude warrant-authorized draws | The statute’s plain language limits forced testing to the four enumerated offenses; a warrant cannot circumvent that limit | The statute unambiguously restricts forced testing to the four listed offenses; warrants do not create an additional exception |
| Proper remedy for a statutory violation (suppression or dismissal) | Suppression is inappropriate absent a constitutional violation; dismissal unwarranted | Suppression (or dismissal) is appropriate to remedy unlawful forced testing | Suppression of the illegally obtained test results is warranted; dismissal of charges is not; convictions reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (blood draws are significant bodily intrusions; exigency must be assessed case-by-case)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (warrantless blood draws require case-specific exigency analysis)
- People v. Null, 233 P.3d 670 (Colo. 2010) (trial courts may suppress evidence for improper police conduct under the Expressed Consent framework)
- People v. Turbyne, 151 P.3d 563 (Colo. 2007) (suppression may remedy statutory violations related to testing procedures)
- People v. Smith, 254 P.3d 1158 (Colo. 2011) (statutory interpretation principles; de novo review of statute interpretation)
- People v. Clayton, 207 P.3d 831 (Colo. 2009) (suppression generally reserved for constitutional violations)
- People v. Shinaut, 940 P.2d 380 (Colo. 1997) (technical statutory violations do not always warrant suppression)
- Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218 (Colo. 2004) (presence of a single specific exception in a statute generally excludes others)
- State v. Hitchens, 294 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1980) (legislature’s omission of warrant exception supports conclusion that warrants cannot circumvent implied-consent limits)