State v. Estrada
In State v. Estrada, 209 Ariz. 287, 288,2, 100 P.3d 452, 453 (App. 2004), the trial court suppressed blood draw evidence, and this Court affirmed. Estrada, 209 Ariz. at 288,1, 100 P.3d at 453.
Estrada had initially agreed to go to the hospital, but changed his mind en route, and "became agitated and attempted to get out of the ambulance." Id. at 289,4, 100 P.3d at 454.
A police officer arrived, and Estrada was handcuffed and shackled to the gurney "at the request of . . . medics because of safety concerns." Id. at 289,5, 100 P.3d at 454.
Hospital staff drew Estrada's blood and gave a sample to law enforcement. Id.
On appeal, the Court concluded that the 28-1388(E) exception does not apply "when the person is subjected to medical treatment that the person has expressly rejected." Id. at 290,13, 100 P.3d at 455.
Such an interpretation is necessary, we held, to prevent officers from circumventing the warrant requirement or a suspect's right of refusal under the implied consent statute. Id. at 290-91,14, 100 P.3d at 455-56.
In Estrada, after a fatal accident, the defendant initially agreed to go to the hospital but then, while en route to the hospital in an ambulance, "apparently changed his mind." 209 Ariz. at 2894, 100 P.3d at 454.
A police officer "then handcuffed and shackled defendant to the gurney." 209 Ariz. at 2895, 100 P.3d at 454. After being "secured to the gurney, he still expressed a desire to get out of the ambulance." Id.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the superior court granted defendant's motion to suppress test results of blood drawn at the hospital. 209 Ariz. at 2897, 100 P.3d at 454.
On appeal, deferring to the superior court's finding that the defendant "unambiguously," "clearly and expressly" refused medical treatment, Estrada found no abuse of discretion in granting defendant's motion to suppress. Id. at 29223, 100 P.3d at 457.
In doing so, Estrada stated the medical draw exception did not apply "when the person is subjected to medical treatment that the person has expressly rejected," finding that a contrary holding would allow "an unscrupulous police officer . . . to have the person forcibly taken to the hospital under the pretext of needing medical treatment in order to procure a blood sample without first obtaining a warrant." 209 Ariz. at 290-9113, 14, 100 P.3d at 455-56.