Blood Draws in North Carolina DWI Investigations

Nonconsensual Blood Draws in North Carolina DWI Cases

The other highly litigated exception to the requirement that a search warrant be obtained before your blood is drawn during a DWI investigation in North Carolina is the existence of exigent circumstances. With regard to exigent circumstances, the general rule is that where evidence would dissipate, or disappear, in the time it would take to get a search warrant, the police may perform the search without first obtaining a search warrant. Thus, in the context of a DWI investigation, the government will argue that a blood draw, the search, should be able to be performed without first obtaining a search warrant because your blood alcohol concentration, the evidence, will dissipate in the time it takes an officer to go get a search warrant. Let’s take a look at what the courts say about this issue.

Missouri v. McNeely

The leading case on whether the dissipation of alcohol is considered an exigent circumstance in DWI cases was decided by the United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely. In McNeely, the defendant was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing the centerline. After being arrested for DWI, the defendant refused to take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration. As a result, the officer took him to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The defendant refused to submit to the blood test and the officer never secured a valid search warrant. Even so, the officer directed a lab technician to take a sample of the defendant’s blood. The defendant’s blood tested well above the legal limit.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that the natural dissipation of alcohol in a person’s bloodstream, standing along, does not constitute an exigency in every impaired driving case sufficient to excuse the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Thus, based on the totality of the circumstances of this case, the nonconsensual, warrantless blood test violated the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person.

Since McNeely, North Carolina’s courts have had to decide similar cases where the police directed a nonconsensual, warrantless blood sample be taken of a defendant’s blood. The following cases look at how North Carolina courts have handled cases that were similar to McNeely. 

State of North Carolina v. Dahlquist

In Dahlquist, the defendant pulled up to a DWI checkpoint. The officer noticed the odor of alcohol, the defendant admitted to drinking five beers, and the defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests. As a result, the defendant was arrested for DWI. When asked to submit to a breath test, the defendant refused. The officers then took the defendant directly to a nearby hospital to have a blood sample taken without first obtaining a search warrant.

The officer testified that he made the decision to go directly to the hospital to have a blood sample taken instead of obtaining a search warrant for the following reasons:

1. He knew that over time the amount of alcohol in the blood dissipates.
2. He knew from his years of experience that the hospital was 10 to 15 minutes away and that getting blood at the specific hospital would take approximately forty-five minutes to one hour.
3. Based on his past experience, he knew that on a weekend night it would take between four and five hours to obtain a blood sample if he first had to travel to a magistrate to obtain a search warrant.

Based on the totality of the circumstances – including, but not limited to, the distance from and time needed to travel to the magistrate and the hospital, and the officer’s knowledge of the approximate wait time at each place – the Court in Dahlquist ruled that the facts of this case gave rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a nonconsensual, warrantless search of the defendant’s body.

State of North Carolina v. Granger

In Granger, the defendant rear-ended a truck towing a trailer. When the officer arrived at the accident scene, he noticed that the defendant was in some level of pain. As a result, the defendant was transported to a nearby hospital. The officer also went to the hospital and ultimately investigated the defendant for DWI.  Based on that investigation, the officer determined that he had probable cause to obtain a blood sample. However, the defendant refused to give his consent. Even so, and without first obtaining a search warrant, the officer directed a nurse to take a blood sample from the defendant.

The officer testified that he did not first obtain a warrant for the following reasons:

1. He was concerned about the dissipation of alcohol from the defendant’s blood because he developed probable cause for DWI over an hour after the defendant’s accident and estimated that it would take at least an additional 40 minutes to travel to the magistrate’s office, obtain a warrant, and return to the hospital.
2. He was investigating the DWI alone and would have had to call and wait for another officer to arrive to observe the defendant before he could leave to secure the search warrant.
3. He was concerned that if he left, or waited any longer for a blood draw, the hospital would administer pain medication that would contaminate the defendant’s blood sample. 

In this case, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that exigent circumstances justified the nonconsensual, warrantless withdrawal of the defendant’s blood. The circumstances that distinguished Granger from McNeely were the fact that an hour and a half had passed since the defendant last drove, it would have taken an additional 40 minutes to obtain a warrant, and it was impractical for the lone investigating officer to leave the defendant unattended in the hospital.

Determining what is considered exigent circumstances sufficient to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement is an evolving area of the law that, as you can see, must be examined on a case by case basis. As it should be, this area of the law will continue to be highly litigated in DWI cases. If you were charged with DWI and a sample of your blood was taken, it is imperative that you contact a Charlotte, North Carolina DWI lawyer at Browning & Long, PLLC to discuss the specifics of your case.

Other Issues in North Carolina DWI Cases

Incapable of Consenting or Refusing

In North Carolina DWI cases, a person is most commonly incapable of consenting to or refusing a blood test where they are unresponsive or unconscious. This typically occurs in DWI accident cases. That is, the person suspected of driving while impaired has been involved in a vehicle accident that has left them unconscious and unable to respond. As a result, they are transported to the hospital where the police often direct medical personnel to perform a blood draw on the unconscious person. But can they?

N.C.G.S. 16.2(b) speaks directly to this issue. This statute essentially allows an officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed a DWI to direct a nurse, or other qualified medical personnel, to draw your blood if you are unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusing the blood draw. This blood draw may be performed without notifying you of your implied consent rights listed above.

However, recently the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled in State v. Romano that the warrantless withdrawal of blood from an unconscious DWI suspect was unconstitutional in that it was an illegal search and seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. That is, the police cannot rely on N.C.G.S. 16.2(b) to have a warrantless blood draw performed on an unconscious DWI suspect. Now, if the police are able to obtain a search warrant for the person’s blood, or show they met an exception to the requirement of search warrant, the blood may still be drawn.

Speak To An Attorney