Court upholds blood tests in DUI cases
FEBRUARY 12, 2010 | BY PETER WONG | statesmanjournal.com
Police do not have to obtain search warrants before they can order blood samples drawn from some suspected drunken drivers, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The court reversed a Sept. 30 Oregon Court of Appeals decision that could have reshaped how police investigate drunken-driving arrests and enforce the law in Oregon.
Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Paul De Muniz said the nature of a driver's blood alcohol is a circumstance that allows a drawing of a blood sample without a warrant.
"We do so ... understanding that particular facts may show, in the rare case, that a warrant could have been obtained and executed significantly faster than the actual process otherwise used under the circumstances," De Muniz wrote.
"We anticipate that only in those rare cases will a warrantless blood draw be unconstitutional. Applying the foregoing rule, this is not the rare case."
Attorney General John Kroger, who has been in office 13 months, made his first appearance before the state's highest court Dec. 16 when he argued the state's case.
"Today's decision is a victory for Oregon because it will help ensure that when people drive under the influence and put their neighbors and fellow citizens at risk, they are held accountable," he said in a statement.
Police make about 25,000 drunken-driving arrests annually; about 1,200 involve blood draws.
Oregon and virtually all states have "implied-consent" laws, under which licensed drivers using public roads agree to submit to breath, blood and urine tests — refusal of which can cost them fines or their their licenses. Oregon's law dates to 1965.
Peter Gartlan, chief defender in the Office of Public Defense Services, argued that the law amounted to coercion. He said lawyers found Thursday's decision "disappointing."
"We continue to assert that because blood draws are invasive searches that produce extensive medical information of a personal nature, the Constitution dictates that the decision to draw blood from an individual should be made by a neutral and detached judge, not an arresting officer in the field," Gartlan said in a statement.
"Further, advances in electronic communication over the last 20 years readily enable judges to make a decision on issuing a warrant for the blood draw within minutes without any loss of evidence."
This case involved Thomas Gregory Machuca of West Linn, whose blood was drawn after a June 1, 2005, crash on Portland's Naito Parkway. He failed to persuade a trial judge to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol level. (It was 0.20 percent, above the legal limit of 0.08 percent.) He said it violated his state constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The first officer arrived at the crash scene at 1:52 a.m., and Officer Joshua Ladd determined at 2:10 a.m. that there was probable cause for a charge of drunken driving.
Ladd went to Oregon Health & Science University hospital, where Machuca had been taken, and drew Machuca's blood at 3:18 a.m. after reading to him the implied-consent form prepared by the Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division.
Machuca was found guilty, but only after he had served notice that he would challenge the circuit court's denial of his motion to exclude his blood alcohol level as evidence.
The case was argued twice before the Oregon Court of Appeals, which decided Sept. 30 on a 6-4 vote in Machuca's favor.
The Supreme Court did not decide the issue of whether the law was coercive. But De Muniz's opinion said that Machuca was informed of his rights and the legal consequences of a refusal to submit to the blood draw.
"The implied-consent law operated exactly as the Legislature intended," he wrote.
