By KATU.com Staff and Jeff Jaeger KATU News
PORTLAND, Ore. – With the potential to become a landmark ruling, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled 5-4 Wednesday that police need to obtain a warrant to check a person’s blood-alcohol content.
The court said a defendant was coerced by police to give a blood sample.
The case, Oregon v. Machuca, overturned Thomas Gregory Machuca’s conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicants. According to the ruling, Machuca, a resident of West Linn, wrecked his car on Naito Parkway in Portland just before 2 a.m. on June 1, 2005, suffered injuries and was taken to Oregon Health and Science University for treatment.
Portland Police Officer Joshua Ladd arrived at the scene of the accident around 2 a.m. and concluded at 2:10 a.m. that he suspected Machuca to be drunk. Ladd went to OHSU to question Machuca and asked him if he would take a blood test. Machuca agreed.
The court, however, ruled that Machuca was coerced because the “consent was procured through a threat of economic harm and loss of privileges.”
Machuca said that he gave consent after he was warned by Ladd that he could face a $1,000 fine and a one-year suspension of his license if he did not take the test, Willamette Week reported.
The court agreed: "Article I, section 9, provides that "[n]o law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure * * *." "The extraction of a blood sample by the police is both a search of the person and a seizure of an 'effect'--the person's blood." State v. Milligan, 304 Or 659, 664, 748 P2d 130 (1988). Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless the state proves an exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Bridewell, 306 Or 231, 235, 759 P2d 1054 (1988)."
John Henry Hingson III, a defense attorney, agreed with the court’s ruling and said, “There is no drunk-driving exception to the Constitution.” Hingson, who wrote “How to Defend a Drunk Driving Case: A Guide to Practical, Procedural and Legal Aspects” said the case “is a reaffirmation of the strength of the Constitution of the State of Oregon and the Constitution of the United States.”
The ruling will have a significant impact on how police officers present evidence on DUII cases. The Portland Police Bureau said in a statement that “We are educating our officers about the new ruling but will continue to enforce DUII laws. This ruling won’t stop us from protecting the public and arresting drunk drivers.”
Hingson said that with current technology there’s no excuse not to get a warrant.
“If you want to, you can take your smartphone or your iPhone [and] e-mail a judge,” he said. He also said the ruling further strengthens individual rights from an unlawful search.
“The Constitution applies to murder cases, robbery cases, rape cases, and drunk-driving cases the same,” he said.
He also said the ruling could have a significant impact in the future on whether a breath test can be conducted without a warrant.
It is still not clear how the ruling will affect how prosecutors try drunken-driving cases. But an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court is likely.
No comments:
Post a Comment