Washington Supreme Court Upholds Forced DUI Blood Draws

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

Like most states, Washington uses an implied consent statute to punish anyone who refuses to submit to a breathalyzer test upon being accused of drunk driving. In a ruling last Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the right of police to use force to remove blood from a motorist even after an informed decision to refuse the test has been made. The high court argued that recent changes to the law essentially eliminated the need to seek consent when a warrant is obtained.

The court made its decision in the case of Robert St. John who crashed his motorcycle in Seattle on July 24, 2005. Responding to the scene that day, Seattle Police Officer Eric Michl noticed St. John had slurred his words when speaking. At Harborview Hospital, Michl arrested St. John for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and read the standard warning about the consequences of refusing a blood alcohol test. Although St. John refused to submit, Michl had a judge standing by and St. John’s blood was removed from his body by force. At trial, Michl testified that he did not warn St. John that he planned to take his blood regardless of his answer.

“The warning given to Mr. St. John was implicitly misleading, violating his due process rights,” St. John’s attorney, Ryan Robertson, argued. “The warning told him he had the right to refuse the test, but never told him the state could obtain his blood without his consent with a warrant if he refused; thus rendering the right to refuse meaningless.”

A municipal court agreed that Michl’s procedure was unfair and illegal, but a superior court reversed the decision. The supreme court’s final ruling is that Michl’s actions were fair and legal.

“Obtaining a blood alcohol test through the implied consent statute is a separate process from obtaining a blood alcohol test pursuant to a warrant, and the officer made no representation to St. John that the state could not obtain a blood alcohol test pursuant to a lawful search warrant,” Justice Susan Owens wrote for the majority.

By separating the two ways to obtain evidence—by consent and by warrant—the majority sidestepped a provision of the implied consent statute explicitly prohibiting forced testing.

“If, following his or her arrest and receipt of warnings . . . the person arrested refuses upon the request of a law enforcement officer to submit to a test or tests of his or her breath or blood, no test shall be given except as authorized under subsection (3) or (4) of this section,” states RCW 46.20.308(5) (subsections 3 and 4 do not apply to the case at hand).

Justices Richard B. Sanders and James M. Johnson filed a dissent, arguing that this provision could not simply be ignored.

“Obtaining a blood sample from St. John by search warrant plainly violated the express prohibition of RCW 46.20.308(5) since St. John withdrew his consent and no exception under the statute applied,” Sanders wrote. “If we accept the majority’s reasoning, a driver’s refusal to consent under subsection (5) would be meaningless.”

The majority countered by citing a 2004 legislative amendment stating “neither consent nor this section precludes a police officer from obtaining a search warrant for a person’s breath or blood.” Because focusing on this provision would allow for the “efficient” conviction of those accused of DUI, the high court found no problem with Officer Michl’s conduct.

“The implied consent statute explicitly allows a police officer to obtain a blood alcohol test pursuant to a warrant, even after a driver refuses a voluntary blood alcohol test,” Owens concluded. “Neither due process nor equitable estoppel requires police officers to inform DUI suspects of the possibility of obtaining a warrant to collect evidence.”

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 23 comments
  • Martin Albright Martin Albright on Sep 18, 2009

    Packard, et al: "Implied Consent" laws do not sidestep the 4th amendment because they are not linked to the criminal prosecution. Implied consent laws are conditions of receiving a driver's license, which is a privilege, not a right. That's why the penalty for refusing a test is not criminal (prosecution) it is a civil administrative procedure to revoke the license (which can be contested, BTW.) Now, if a driver does consent to a blood, breath or urine test, then that evidence can be introduced at trial. But the implied or express consent laws are not part of the criminal law, they are part of the civil law relating to the issuance of driver's licenses. As part of civil law, the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure does not apply nor does the 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination (you have no privilege against self-incrimination in a civil trial, ask anyone who's ever been sued.) To put it more simply, you can "opt out" of the implied/express consent laws if you want. All you have to do is not get a drivers license and not drive on public highways. No drivers license = no implied/express consent laws.

  • Diekaste Diekaste on Sep 18, 2009

    @SexCpotatoes, Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face? Next to the sham consistently perpetrated against the motorist, frankly our police force has been relegated to the role of modern day highwayman. I cannot remember when I have last seen one of my finest on the beat..

  • Lorenzo Subaru had the ideal wagon - in 1995. The Legacy Outback was a straight two-box design with rear quarter and back windows you could see out of, and was available in brown with a 5-speed manual, as God and TTAC commenters intended. It's nice they're not raising prices, but when you've lost the plot, does it matter?
  • Bkojote Remember a month a go when Cleveland wanted to create a more walkable Cleveland and TTAC's 'BIG GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM' dumbest and dullest all collectively crapped their diapers? Here's the thing- look on any American highway and it's littered with people who don't /want/ to be driving or shouldn't be. Look at every Becky on her phone during the morning commute in her Tucson, look at every Brad aggro driving his 84 month loan GMC. Hell look how many drivers nowadays can't even operate a headlight switch. You expect these people to understand a stoplight? In my neighborhood alone 4 people have been rear ended at lights from someone on their phone. Distracted driving over the past 10 years has spiked, and it's only going to get worse unless Becky has an alternative, because no judge is going to pull her license when 'she needs it to get to work!' but heaven forbid she not check fb/tiktok for 40 minutes a day.
  • Scott Shouldn't the The Italian Minister for Business be criticizing The Milano for being too ugly to be Italian?Better use of resources doing that....
  • Steve Biro Frankly, while I can do without Eyesight and automatic start-stop, there is generally less B-S with Subarus in terms of design, utility and off-road chops than with many other brands. I just hope that when they adopt Toyota’s hybrid system, they’ll also use Toyota’s eCVT.
  • The Oracle These are all over the roads in droves here in WNC. Rarely see one on the side of the road, they are wildly popular, capable, and reliable. There is a market for utilitarian vehicles.
Next