Here we are in the second week of the last month of 2020! Just a couple more weeks and we will be done with this semester. Keep pushing through, you got this! This week I want to share with you an SJC case which ruled that blood alcohol content collected without the person’s consent is inadmissible at trial. Relax and happy reading!
On the evening of March 23, 2014, a Driver lost control of her vehicle on a highway and crashed into a guardrail. Her car came to rest with part of the car in the roadway. A short while after, the Defendant was driving down the same highway and crashed his vehicle into the Driver’s. At the moment, the Driver was outside of her vehicle standing on the side of the road, so due to a chain reaction, the Defendant’s act caused her car to strike her and also put her in the path of the Defendant’s car. The Driver sustained serious injuries when she was, “dragged underneath the Defendant’s vehicle for more than 20 feet.”
The police arrived and noticed the Defendant had a wound on his forehead and appeared unsteady. The police observed the Defendant to have glossy and bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and a heavy smell of alcohol on his breath. When the police asked the Defendant what happened, the Defendant said that, “another car had come out of nowhere” and ran him over. The Defendant was transported to a hospital thereafter.
After the Defendant refused to consent to a blood draw, the police obtained a search warrant to obtain a blood sample based on suspected OUI. Defendant continuously objected to the blood draw, even after the presentation of a search warrant. Despite the Defendant’s objections, the police restrained the Defendant’s arms and legs and directed the nurses to draw his blood. The nurses drew two vials of the Defendant’s blood. It was found the Defendant’s blood alcohol content to be between a 0.16 and 0.26 at the time of the crash.
The Defendant moved to exclude the blood alcohol content evidence since it was taken in the absence of the Defendant’s consent as required by both G.L.c. 90, Section 24(1)(e) and G.L.c. 90, Section 24(1)(f)(1).
G.L.c. 90, Section 24(1)(e) provides that when a test of a Defendant’s breath or blood is made by or at the direction of police, the test must be done with the defendant’s consent in order for the results to be admissible for prosecution of an OUI charge.
G.L.c. 90, Section 24(1)(f)(1) provides that by driving on public roads, all drivers give consent to submit to a blood alcohol content test if arrested for an OUI. However, the statute goes on to state that if the defendant, “refuses to submit to such test or analysis… no such test or analysis must be made.” In such an event, the remedy would be to suspend the defendant’s license for at least six months.
The state argued that the Defendant’s blood draw was lawful because the police acted pursuant to a valid search warrant. However, the SJC concluded that the plain language of the statutes at issue requires the Defendant’s consent to the blood draw. Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote the following for the majority, “Both subsections require consent for OUI blood draws, and neither makes an exception for, or even mentions, warrants.”
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Volume 49, No. 47.
Do You Agree with the SJC’s Decision?
Great case. Just a brief comment. Working in the medical field I understand that If you are the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident in this state that under MA law, an individual consents to a blood draw and this procedure would be considered implied consent if they are brought to a hospital and or clinic for medical treatment obviously for treatment if they were unable to grant consent at that type and the magnitude of a life and death condition. Obtaining a blood sample from a person who is autonomous and refuses however presents a challenge as it is a more invasive procedure than if they were only utilizing a breathalizer. There’s more of a privacy concern when results of a blood culture is analyzed. It’s a balancing act of a persons constitutional right versus public safety.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts and for sharing your knowledge with the rest of us!
Delete