 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Schall12/16/2002
ORDER REVERSED EN BANC
In this interlocutory appeal, filed pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1 and section 16-12-102(2), 6 C.R.S. (2002), the prosecution appeals the district court's suppression of blood alcohol evidence that the Colorado Highway Patrol obtained from the defendant, Mark Schall. We reverse the district court's suppression order. The district court incorrectly concluded that the police lacked probable cause to arrest Schall for an alcohol-related offense, a precondition to collecting blood from him. The facts supporting probable cause in this case are that an eyewitness observed Schall driving his car into oncoming traffic, the police smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage from his badly wrecked car, and the police saw broken beer bottles inside the car. Because the constitutional prerequisites to collecting a blood sample from a non-consenting suspect are satisfied in this case, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not bar admission of the blood alcohol evidence.
I.
This case involves an automobile accident that occurred in the early morning of April 2, 2001, on Colorado Highway 85 in Douglas County. The facts at the suppression hearing were that Schall's car crossed the centerline of the highway and collided with a semi-truck headed in the opposite direction. A second semi-truck, following behind the first, veered off the road to avoid Schall and the first truck. In the process, the second truck overturned, killing the driver. Schall was seriously injured. The police did not have an opportunity to interview Schall or conduct a roadside sobriety test before a helicopter evacuated him to a hospital.
The police relied on facts at the scene of the accident to establish probable cause to believe that Schall was driving under the influence of alcohol. First, an eyewitness saw Schall driving over the centerline of the highway and striking the semi-truck. The police observed that there were no skid marks, which would have indicated that Schall tried to brake or dodge an animal or other obstacle in the road and lost control of his vehicle before colliding with the semi-truck.
Second, the police smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from Schall's car. The police saw several broken beer bottles in his car, along with one intact bottle. Based on the circumstances of the accident and the smell of an alcoholic beverage from Schall's badly wrecked vehicle, the police ordered blood draws while Schall was undergoing treatment for injuries sustained in the accident. Schall did not consent to the collection of these samples. The samples were obtained within two hours of the accident.
Based in part on test results from Schall's blood draws, the prosecution charged him with vehicular homicide and driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both. In a pretrial motion, Schall sought to suppress the results of his blood tests, arguing that the police obtained the evidence without probable cause. After a hearing, the trial court granted Schall's motion. It determined that the information known to the police at the time of the blood draws was not sufficient for probable cause to believe that Schall had committed an alcohol-related driving offense.
II.
We hold that probable cause existed for Schall's blood draws and testing. The facts at the suppression hearing were that Schall caused the accident by driving his car into oncoming traffic, the interior of his badly wrecked car smelled of an alcoholic beverage, and the police observed broken beer bottles in the car. Because the constitutional prerequisites to collecting a blood sample from a non-consenting suspect are satisfied in this
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|