Court Allows Use of Hospital Blood Test to Prove Drunk Driver's Blood Alcohol Level
by
Joseph C. Maya on Mar. 24, 2017
Summary: Blog post on a case where the court allowed a blood test taken at a hospital into court as evidence that the driver was drunk.
For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
In the case of State v. Eberl, a man charged with a violation of Connecticut DUI law and other offenses moved to suppress a blood test revealing the alcohol content of his blood, which was taken by his physician in the hospital following his auto accident. The man challenged the validity of the search warrant under both Connecticut state and Federal Constitution law. The alleged offender was driving his vehicle and was in an accident. The officer at the scene smelled alcohol and saw a partly consumed alcohol bottle in the vehicle. The man was charged with a violation of Connecticut DUI law. When in the hospital after the accident, the man's physician ordered blood tests to determine the extent of his alleged injuries. A court had issued a search warrant for the blood analysis after the accident. The State sought to admit the blood test it obtained by warrant.
The man moved to suppress the blood test revealing the alcohol content of his blood. He challenged the validity of the search warrant under Connecticut law and policy. In addition, the man argued that the use of personal medical information would violation his Constitutional protection against "unlawful search and seizure." The motion to suppress was denied. Under law, where police do not take the blood sample or ask that it be drawn disposes of the argument concerning illegal search and seizure. The issue does not involve a violation of an individual's Constituional rights becuase it was conducted by the man's own initiative, specifically, to diagnose and treat his alleged injuries. Therefore, the test results in the case at hand does not apply to a search procedure, even an arbitrary one. Since the test was taken at by the man's initiative by the attending physician for treatment of his alleged injuries, it was not a state action violating constitutional protections. Alleged, not actual, injuries were what was required under Connecticut law. Consent was also not a prerequisite to admission of the blood test, because all individuals in the course of operating a motor vehicle are subject to DUI tests by state officials.
The motion to suppress was denied. The test was taken at a hospital by the man's own physician for treatment of his alleged injuries. In this respect, there was no state action conducted in the administration of his blood test. The information was obtained through a legal search warrant. Consent was not a prerequisite to admission of the blood test. The officer at the accident scene smelled alcohol, and saw an empty liquor bottle in the man's car. In general, such evidence alone constitutes probable cause for further investigation of the man's level of inebriation.
Maya Murphy P.C. has the resources and expertise to offer you the best possible representation throughout the criminal process. If you are facing criminal charges or wish to appeal your case, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel.
Source: State v. Eberl, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2222, 2000 WL 1268994 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 25, 2000)
