Exigent circumstances justified taking defendant’s blood without warrant

Warrantless taking of blood in a DUI with serious bodily injury case was reasonable because time was running, and the officer feared complete dissipation of alcohol in the blood, and the officer had plenty of probable cause to believe defendant was under the influence because he failed field sobriety tests and refused a breath test. The blood was taken at a hospital. This was reasonable under Schmerber and state law. State v. Johnson, 744 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa Sup. 2008):

In all, more than two and a half hours passed between the time of the accident and the time Johnson’s blood was drawn. During this time, his blood-alcohol concentration was continually diminishing due to the natural dissipation of alcohol. The traffic officer testified that he believed evidence of Johnson’s blood-alcohol concentration would be destroyed if he waited to draw blood until after a search warrant was obtained. We conclude that the officers complied with section 321J.10A, which requires only a reasonable belief that the delay necessary to obtain a warrant would threaten the destruction of the evidence.

Defendant was seized because he was blocked into his parking space, and he got out of the car and was ordered back into it. He was sitting in a car in an apartment complex that was known to be a high crime area, but that was just not enough for reasonable suspicion. Stone v. Commonwealth, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 32 (February 8, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.