Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court considers whether a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious driver violated the Fourth Amendment. The court holds that driving in Colorado constitutes statutory consent to blood-alcohol testing under the Expressed Consent Statute, and that this statutory consent satisfies the consent exception to the warrant requirement. The court reverses the trial court’s order suppressing the blood-draw evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Colorado's Expressed Consent Statute supplied valid consent under the Fourth Amendment for a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious driver when police had probable cause to believe the driver had been driving under the influence.
- Whether applying the statute to require blood testing of an unconscious driver violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating unconscious drivers differently from conscious drivers.
Holdings
- By driving in Colorado, Hyde consented to the terms of the Expressed Consent Statute, including its requirement that an unconscious driver be tested. That statutory consent satisfied the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, so the warrantless blood draw was constitutional.
- Section 42-4-1301.1(8) does not violate equal protection because the classification between unconscious and conscious drivers is rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of obtaining evidence needed to deter and prosecute impaired driving.
Key quotations
“It is well established that a search is reasonable when the subject consents, and that sometimes consent to a search need not be express but may be fairly inferred from context.” (¶ 21)
“there is no constitutional right to refuse a blood-alcohol test.” (¶ 27)
“By driving in Colorado, Hyde consented to the terms of the Expressed Consent Statute, including its requirement that he submit to blood-alcohol testing under the circumstances present here.” (¶ 32)
Factual background
Hyde drove his pickup truck into a light pole and was found unconscious and pinned in the driver's seat. An officer smelled alcohol, and a passenger reported that Hyde had consumed three beers. At the hospital, police requested a blood draw without obtaining a warrant or contemporaneous consent because Hyde was unconscious; the test, taken less than two hours after the accident, showed a BAC of 0.06.
Procedural history
Hyde was charged with DUI after a blood test taken while he was unconscious showed a BAC of 0.06. The trial court found probable cause but suppressed the blood-test result, concluding that the warrantless draw violated the Fourth Amendment because Hyde had no contemporaneous opportunity to refuse. The People filed an interlocutory appeal.