warrantless blood test in North Carolina

2017ROMANO Opinion of the Court In Schmerber v. California the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a warrantless blood test of an individual arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence.’ ” 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S. Ct. at 1835 (quoting Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 , 84 S. Ct. 881, 883 (1964)).

2017ROMANO Opinion of the Court In Schmerber v. California the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a warrantless blood test of an individual arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence.’ ” 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S. Ct. at 1835 (quoting Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 , 84 S. Ct. 881, 883 (1964)).

2019In its opinion, the Court stated the following: [W]e remand to the Court of Appeals with instructions to that court to vacate the portion of the trial court's ... order denying defendant's motion to suppress [the warrantless blood test] and further remand to the trial court for (1) additional findings and conclusions-and, if necessary-a new hearing on whether the totality *917 of the events underlying defendant's motion to suppress gave rise to exigent circumstances, and (2) thereafter to reconsider, if necessary, the judgments ... entered[.] Id. at 571-72 , 780 S.E.2d at 554 .

2019In its opinion, the Court stated the following: [W]e remand to the Court of Appeals with instructions to that court to vacate the portion of the trial court's ... order denying defendant's motion to suppress [the warrantless blood test] and further remand to the trial court for (1) additional findings and conclusions-and, if necessary-a new hearing on whether the totality *917 of the events underlying defendant's motion to suppress gave rise to exigent circumstances, and (2) thereafter to reconsider, if necessary, the judgments ... entered[.] Id. at 571-72 , 780 S.E.2d at 554 .

2017See, e.g., State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 2008) (holding that the natural dissipation of blood alcohol evidence is per se exigency), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1137 , 129 S. Ct. 1001 (2009); State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529 , 494 N.W.2d 399 (same), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 836 , 114 S. Ct. 112 (1993); see also State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 , 775 P.2d 1210 (1989) (same), overruled by State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 , 337 P.3d 575 (2014).

2017See, e.g., State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 2008) (holding that the natural dissipation of blood alcohol evidence is per se exigency), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1137 , 129 S. Ct. 1001 (2009); State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529 , 494 N.W.2d 399 (same), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 836 , 114 S. Ct. 112 (1993); see also State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 , 775 P.2d 1210 (1989) (same), overruled by State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 , 337 P.3d 575 (2014).

2017See, e.g., State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 2008) (holding that the natural dissipation of blood alcohol evidence is per se exigency), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1137 , 129 S. Ct. 1001 (2009); State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529 , 494 N.W.2d 399 (same), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 836 , 114 S. Ct. 112 (1993); see also State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 , 775 P.2d 1210 (1989) (same), overruled by State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 , 337 P.3d 575 (2014).

2017See, e.g., State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 2008) (holding that the natural dissipation of blood alcohol evidence is per se exigency), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1137 , 129 S. Ct. 1001 (2009); State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529 , 494 N.W.2d 399 (same), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 836 , 114 S. Ct. 112 (1993); see also State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 , 775 P.2d 1210 (1989) (same), overruled by State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 , 337 P.3d 575 (2014).

2017As to the exigency of destructibility of the evidence, the Court of Appeals relied on Schmerber in determining that “the body’s breakdown of alcohol in the blood creates the reasonable risk that the evidence of intoxication will quickly be destroyed.” Id. at 44, 334 S.E.2d at 468 (citing Schmerber, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S. Ct. 1826 ). 5 In Schmerber v. California the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a warrantless blood test of an individual arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in w

2017The Court noted that its “prior opinions have referred approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply.” Id. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2185 .

2017The Court noted that its “prior opinions have referred approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply.” Id. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2185 .