Decision here.
Schaufele caused an accident and was transported to the hospital, where an investigating officer noted indicia of alcohol intoxication. Since he was lapsing in and out of consciousness, express consent was not explained to him. A blood draw was conducted without a warrant, and his BAC turned out to be .2something.
The trial court did not find that there were exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless blood draw, and suppressed the BAC evidence. The people appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court, with frequent references to the SCOTUS case of Missouri v. McNeely, held that the trial court had made the correct decision. Even though the express consent statute might have allowed for the blood draw (since Schaufele was unconscious), the express consent statute does not trump constitutional law.
The people's argument centered around the time that it would have taken to get a warrant. The court ruled that this is just one factor in determining whether or not there are exigent circumstances, and that the trial court had already correctly determined that the totality in this case weighed against that one factor.
And with that, another Sulli "loophole" is closed.
ReplyDelete