Background
Police arrested Carlos Edward Adams for DUII after responding to a report that a driver had crashed into a fence and was leaving the scene. Officers saw Adams walking away from his car with what appeared to be a bottle in a paper bag and observed slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and difficulty maintaining his balance. They took him to a nearby precinct and transferred the investigation to Officer McCarthy, an experienced DUII investigator.
After field sobriety testing, Adams declined a breath test and initially agreed to a blood test. He then asked to speak with an attorney and, after doing so, withdrew his consent at 4:53 p.m., nearly three hours after the initial report. McCarthy concluded that obtaining a telephonic warrant—requiring preparation, prosecutorial review, and judicial approval near the evening commute—could take another 45 minutes to two hours. He directed a paramedic to draw Adams’s blood without a warrant. The trial court denied Adams’s motion to suppress, and he was convicted of DUII and reckless driving.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying the Fourth Amendment’s totality-of-the-circumstances test, the court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw. The natural dissipation of alcohol did not create a categorical exception to the warrant requirement, but the nearly three hours already elapsed, combined with the credited estimate that obtaining a warrant would require another 45 minutes to two hours, supported the trial court’s finding of exigency.
The court rejected Adams’s arguments that the arresting officers should have completed the DUII investigation themselves and that McCarthy should not have stopped a dangerous driver who nearly struck his vehicle while he was traveling to the precinct. Those decisions were reasonable under the circumstances. The court also declined to consider Adams’s separate argument that Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution required a warrant before the blood sample was tested because he had not preserved that issue in the trial court and did not seek plain-error review.
Key Takeaways
- Alcohol dissipation alone does not establish a per se exigency; courts must assess the totality of the circumstances.
- A warrantless blood draw may be justified when substantial time has already passed and credible evidence shows that obtaining a warrant would cause significant additional delay.
- Courts evaluate officers’ decisions from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, without relying on hindsight.
- A distinct claim that police needed a warrant to test a lawfully drawn blood sample must be preserved in the trial court.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidence Oregon courts require to sustain a warrantless DUII blood draw after Missouri v. McNeely. Rather than relying solely on alcohol’s natural dissipation, the state presented case-specific testimony about elapsed time, warrant-preparation requirements, reviewer availability, and the additional delay expected in securing judicial authorization.
The opinion also emphasizes that challenges to drawing blood and challenges to later testing the sample are legally distinct. A defendant who raises only the former in the trial court may not obtain appellate review of the latter without satisfying the requirements for plain-error review.