12/20/2000
Following Defendant’s filing of a Motion to Suppress, the Superior court stayed proceedings and sent the case to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, death resulting, in violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.2. Defendant turned out of a gas station and collided with a motorcycle, killing the motorcycle’s operator. As law enforcement responded to the collision, an on-scene investigation ensued and defendant was arrested. After being taken to the police station, Defendant submitted to a breath test, which indicated Defendant’s BAC was .026. A drug evaluation expert performed a drug influence evaluation on Defendant and concluded that she was under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant. The police asked Defendant to submit to a blood test to confirm which stimulant was in her system, and Defendant refused. The police then obtained a search warrant from a justice of the Superior Court to extract samples of Defendant’s blood and urine. The subsequent blood test revealed the presence of marijuana and cocaine. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the introduction of the test at trial on the ground that her blood was drawn without her consent and that the Superior Court lacked the authority to issue a warrant for a blood draw. The Supreme Court agreed with the Defendant, citing its previous decision in State v. Timms, 505 A2.d 1132 (R.I. 1986), where the court held that actual consent was required for hospital personnel to obtain a defendant’s blood. After examining the language of the relevant statute, and examining similar statutes in over a dozen states, the Court concluded that the plain and unambiguous language of § 31-27-2.2 required that, once a suspect refused a blood or chemical test, a test should not be given, with or without a warrant. The Court further concluded that, pursuant to the warrant authority granted to the Superior Court, the Superior Court lacked the authority to issue a warrant for a blood draw. Accordingly, the court remanded the case back to the lower court.