In State v. Rosengren, 199 Ariz. 112, P 22, 14 P.3d 303, 310 (App. 2000), after being arrested for DUI, the defendant asked several times to speak with counsel; when officers denied his requests, the defendant refused to consent to a blood draw. 199 Ariz. 112, PP 4-5, 14 P.3d at 306. Officers then obtained and executed a telephonic search warrant for his blood. Id. P 6. Rosengren later moved for dismissal of all charges based on the violation of his right to counsel. Id. P7. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but suppressed the blood-test results and additional evidence obtained after his request for counsel had been denied, id., and this court affirmed on appeal. In affirming the lower court's ruling, we concluded that the search warrant could not remedy the deprivation of counsel. Id. P 30 (rejecting out-of-state case holding alcohol test results admissible despite violation of right to counsel on theory of inevitable discovery). The Court noted that, "had Rosengren succumbed to the police pressure by voluntarily giving a blood sample after the officers violated his right to counsel, evidence of the blood test would have been suppressed." The Court therefore found it "incongruous to allow the state to introduce the . . . test result when Rosengren resisted the officers' tactics, refused to waive his rights, and ultimately had blood extracted pursuant to the warrant." Id.