State v. Stephens

Because a blood draw is a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless blood draw may only be conducted if an exception to the warrant requirement applies. An exigency exception exists when BAC evidence is dissipating and some factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that necessarily take priority over a warrant application. Mitchell  v.  Wisconsin, 139  S. Ct.  2525 (2019).

Defendant struck and killed a bicyclist while driving under the influence and was subsequently convicted on one count of second-degree manslaughter and two counts of DUII. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it rejected his argument that evidence obtained from two warrantless blood draws was inadmissible. Defendant argued that no exigencies were present to justify the warrantless blood draws. The State responded that obtaining a warrant would have caused substantial delay and loss of evidence as to Defendant’s blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). Because a blood draw is a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless blood draw may only be conducted if an exception to the warrant requirement applies. An exigency exception exists when BAC evidence is dissipating and some factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that necessarily take priority over a warrant application. Mitchell  v.  Wisconsin, 139  S. Ct.  2525 (2019). The Court held that the exigency justified the warrantless blood draw because obtaining a warrant would have resulted in a substantial delay and correspondingly, a loss of BAC evidence. Affirmed.