ME: Four failed breath tests in 90 min was exigency for warrantless blood draw

The state showed exigent circumstances for a warrantless blood draw. The officer took defendant to a nearby police station where he had after hours access to get a breath sample, but the machine wasn’t working and he didn’t know it. After four failed attempts, time was running out, and he asked a fire department paramedic to do the blood draw. Defendant wasn’t informed of the right to have a doctor do it, and no warrant was sought. Still, there were exigent circumstances. State v. Arndt, 2016 ME 31, 2016 Me. LEXIS 32 (Feb. 18, 2016):

[*P11] Arndt’s argument concerning McNeely fails. Here, the deputy’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The deputy transported Arndt to the Bath PD station to obtain a breath test, believing that he could more quickly administer a blood-alcohol test in Bath, rather than waiting for a Topsham police officer to grant him access to the nearer Topsham PD station. The deputy unsuccessfully made four separate attempts to obtain a blood-alcohol level using the Intoxilyzer at the Bath PD station. By the time the fourth attempt was complete, nearly one and one-half hours had passed from the time of the initial arrest. At this point, it was reasonable for the deputy to become concerned that further delay would result in the loss of evidence due to the metabolization of the alcohol in Arndt’s body. In order to preserve reliable evidence of intoxication, the deputy proceeded with a warrantless blood test. We affirm the suppression court’s determination that exigent circumstances existed, negating the requirement for a search warrant.