SD: Hospital blood draw was for medical purposes, not as agent of police; “small town” folks working together argument fails

Just because this DUI happened in a small town and the hospital drew blood from defendant on admission, as it usually does, that doesn’t mean that the hospital was acting as an agent of the police when doing the blood draw for medical purposes. State v. Fischer, 2016 SD 12, 2016 S.D. LEXIS 20 (Feb. 3, 2016):

[*P12] Fisher argues that the “Fourth Amendment totality-of-the-circumstances analysis [that applies] to law enforcement blood samples … should apply to the hospital draw in this case.” He claims that law enforcement and medical personnel in small communities have a close relationship because of the “prevalence of alcohol related offenses in [these] communities” and the frequent contact between the two groups such as seeking assistance in blood draws. Fischer asks us to determine that the hospital blood draw was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights because it had a dual purpose of medical and investigatory in light of this alleged close relationship. Fischer’s arguments are unavailing, particularly as here, where law enforcement had absolutely no involvement in the blood draw. Officers were not present when the blood draw was ordered by Dr. Pinter or performed by hospital staff. We will not equate medical decisions with law enforcement action based on the alleged “sundry matters that bring them together” and the relationship that allegedly results. When hospital staff draws blood solely for medical purposes, there is no unconstitutional governmental activity to deter and suppression is an inappropriate remedy in this case. See id.

This entry was posted in Body searches, Drug or alcohol testing, Private search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.