Please visit my author page at amazon.com
State of Iowa v. Brian De Arrie McGee. Warrantless Blood Draw
The defendant in this Polk County, Iowa, case was involved in an injury accident and was rendered unconscious. When police and medics were tending to him, there was a strong odor of marijuana. A Des Moines police officer was sent to the hospital to obtain a blood sample pursuant to Iowa Code 321J.7. In accordance with that statute, the officer obtained the signature of medical personnel that the defendant was unable to give consent or refuse. Minutes later, while they were preparing to draw the blood, the defendant "suddenly awoke in a muddled state" and frantically repeated the word "pee." While the medical personel scrambled to find a proper receptacle, the defendant proceeded to urinate on himself. He then passed out again and the blood was drawn. It tested positive, and the defendant was charged with OWI.
The defendant moved to suppress the results of the blood test. He argued that when he awoke, a new certification should have been obtained. But the district court held that the circumstances didn't change materially in those 11 minutes. Therefore, the original certification was valid, and thest was admissible under both the statute and the Fourth Amendment. The defendant appealed, and the case was ultimately heard by the Iowa Supreme Court.
The high court reluctantly remanded the case. While it held that the test was valid under the statute, there was a U.S. Supreme Court case decided after the district court's ruling. In Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019), a plurality of the court held that warrantless blood tests were generally allowed. However, it held that the defendant in that case was entitled to a remand in order to show "that his was an unusual case, in which his blood would not have been drawn had police not been seeking BAC information and police could not have reasonably judged that a warrant application would interfere with other pressing needs or duties."
The Iowa Supreme Court agreed that since this case had not been decided when the district court made its ruling, the record was lacking factual findings sufficient to determine whether this was such an "unusual case." Accordingly, it remanded the case to make such findings.
No. 19-1219 (Iowa May 14, 2021).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his
low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case
summaries
Copyright 2021, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com