 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Medina-Fuentes5/8/2003
. The State of Wisconsin appeals the circuit court's order suppressing blood draw evidence. The issue is whether the blood was taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. We conclude that the blood draw was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court's order suppressing the evidence.
. Ramon Medina-Fuentes and Samantha Cullen had a head-on automobile accident at 12:46 a.m. on May 19, 2001. Cullen died at the scene. Medina-Fuentes was taken to the hospital. Several officers remained at the scene to investigate, while police officer Rahim Rahaman went to the University of Wisconsin Hospital. Rahaman directed medical staff at the hospital to draw blood from Medina-Fuentes for evidence of intoxication. Medina-Fuentes moved to suppress the blood sample. The circuit court ordered the blood evidence to be suppressed for lack of probable cause.
. The State argues that the blood is admissible because the police had probable cause to arrest Medina-Fuentes and the blood sample was admissible as a search incident to arrest. The State cites State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), which provides that a warrantless blood sample taken at the direction of the police is admissible as evidence of a crime if: (1) the blood is taken to obtain evidence from a person lawfully arrested for a drunk-driving related crime; (2) there is a clear indication that the blood will produce evidence of intoxication; (3) the blood is taken in a reasonable manner; and (4) the arrested person presents no reasonable objection to the blood draw. Id. at 533-34. Although Medina-Fuentes had not been arrested when the blood sample was taken, the State argues that there was probable cause to arrest him, which is sufficient to satisfy Bohling. See id. at 534 n.1 (probable cause to arrest may substitute for the predicate act of a lawful arrest).
. Medina-Fuentes contends, in pertinent part, that the blood sample was taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment because he had not been lawfully arrested and there was no probable cause to arrest him. He cites State v. Swanson, 164 Wis. 2d 437, 453 n.6, 475 N.W.2d 148 (1991), and State v. Seibel, 163 Wis. 2d 164, 471 N.W.2d 226 (1991).
. The parties have too narrowly focused the admissibility inquiry by addressing only whether there was probable cause to arrest, rather than whether there was probable cause for a search independent of any arrest. We recently held that, in the absence of an arrest, "probable cause to believe blood currently contains evidence of a drunk-driving-related violation or crime satisfies the first prong of Bohling." State v. Erickson, 2003 WI App 43, , review denied (Wis. Apr. 22, 2003) (No. 01-3367-CR). Among other things, we pointed to State v. Donovan, 91 Wis. 2d 401, 408, 283 N.W.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1979), which provides: "Reasonableness as the ultimate standard of lawfulness of a warrantless search is fulfilled only if its two components are met: (1) probable cause to search and (2) exigent circumstances that excuse application for a judicially authorized search warrant." Under Erickson, the blood sample is admissible if the police had probable cause to conduct a search and exigent circumstances were present.
. "When analyzing probable cause to search, the proper inquiry is whether evidence of a crime will be found." Erickson, 2003 WI App 43, (citations omitted). "The quantum of evidence required to establish probable cause to search is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Id. (citations omitted). "Whether probable cause for a search exists is determined by
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|