State v. Don Jacob Havatone

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arizona held that Arizona’s statutory unconscious clause authorizing warrantless blood draws from unconscious DUI suspects was unconstitutional as applied because no case-specific exigent circumstances justified the draw. The court also held that Arizona’s good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply to a routine department policy directing such draws without individualized consideration of whether a warrant could be obtained. The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and remanded for determination of whether Arizona or Nevada law governed and, if Nevada law applied, whether the good-faith exception was available.

Holdings

1. A.R.S. § 28-1321(C) is unconstitutional as applied where law enforcement obtains a nonconsensual blood draw from an unconscious DUI suspect pursuant to a blanket policy and without case-specific exigent circumstances preventing timely acquisition of a warrant.
2. The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply under Arizona law to evidence obtained through DPS's routine practice of directing warrantless, nonconsensual blood draws from unconscious DUI suspects transported out of state without individualized exigency determinations.
3. The trial court must determine in the first instance whether Arizona or Nevada law governs the suppression question; if Nevada law applies, it must determine whether Nevada law supports the good-faith exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Arizona's implied-consent statute, A.R.S. § 28-1321(C), may constitutionally authorize a nonconsensual, warrantless blood draw from an unconscious DUI suspect absent case-specific exigent circumstances.
2. Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to the blood draw.
3. Whether Arizona or Nevada law governs the suppression question.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded