Colorado Supreme Court People v. Ackerman 14SA358

April 20, 2015

   Ackerman ran from the cops on an ATV whilst drunk, and crashed.  He and his passenger both sustained serious injuries and were transported to different hospitals.  She was DOA.

   The agency handling the investigation apparently had some pretty convoluted protocols for handling cases like this.  They have an accident reconstructionist team (which makes sense), but in critical incidents they also handle an internal investigation (do make sure there's no police wrongdoing) at the same time as their criminal investigation, which is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.  Their dumbass policies become an issue because of the trial court's findings.

   Anyway, the accident investigators sent some people to the scene, an officer to each of the hospitals where the involved parties went, and had someone writing an affidavit for a search warrant for Ackerman's blood.  Before the affidavit could be completed, the officer at the hospital with Ackerman learned that he as about to go into surgery.  The guy who was running the investigation made the decision to order a warrantless blood draw before the surgery, and then a warrant was obtained to get two more blood draws afterwards.

   Of course, Ackerman's BAC was well over the legal limit.  In court, he moved to suppress the results of the blood tests.  The trial court held that the reason the warrant wasn't obtained was because of a procedural breakdown in the investigation, and because of poor communication between the officers.  The first blood test was suppressed, but the two with a warrant were admitted.  The people filed an interlocutory appeal.

   The Colorado Supreme Court explained that involuntary blood draws are justified when four conditions are met: 1- There must be probable cause to arrest the defendant for an alcohol-related driving offense.  2- There must be a clear indication that the blood sample with be evidence of the defendant's intoxication (this is a gimme, since blood tests are well established to be extremely accurate in gauging intoxication).  3- Exigent circumstances much exist which make it impractical to obtain a warrant.  4- The test must be a reasonable one, conducted in a reasonable manner (another gimme, since medical professionals always handle the blood draw in accordance with their procedures).

   In this case, the trial court had ruled that there was probable cause, but only that there was no exigency.  The Supreme Court acknowledged that if the cops had known at the start of the investigation exactly when Ackerman would be in surgery and unavailable for a blood draw then this would have been the correct ruling.  However, the cops were already dealing with a complex and logistically challenging investigation (this must have been a small department...), were already trying to get a warrant, and then they learned at the last minute that Ackerman was about to go under the knife.  Under those circumstances (and without the 20/20 hindsight employed by the trial court), it was impractical to obtain a warrant for the first blood draw.

   The suppression order was reversed, and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.