Do Police Need a Warrant for a Blood Draw in Nevada DUI Cases?
In Nevada, the police often need a search warrant to conduct a blood draw in a DUI investigation if the suspect refuses to consent to the test. Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, which includes drawing blood to check for alcohol or drug impairment. However, there are several key aspects of Nevada law, including implied consent and warrant exceptions, that impact whether police need a warrant for a blood draw in DUI cases.
Understanding Implied Consent in Nevada DUI Cases
Nevada has an implied consent law codified under NRS 484C.160, which states that any person who operates a motor vehicle on a public road is deemed to have given their consent to a breath, blood, or urine test if they are suspected of driving under the influence (DUI). This means that when a person is lawfully arrested for DUI, the police have the right to request a chemical test to determine their level of intoxication.
While the law states that drivers have implied consent, it does not mean that a driver cannot refuse a test. A driver can still decline to submit to a blood draw. However, such refusal does not mean the police will drop the investigation—law enforcement may still obtain a search warrant to draw blood.
Can a Driver Consent to a Blood Draw?
In many DUI stops, the police will ask the driver to voluntarily consent to a blood draw. Consent can be given verbally, and once granted, a warrant is not necessary. However, consent must be voluntary. If the police coerce, pressure, or threaten the driver into consenting, the courts may rule that the consent was invalid, making the blood draw unconstitutional and inadmissible in court.
When a person voluntarily consents to a blood draw, the results of the test can be used as evidence in a DUI case. Therefore, drivers should be aware that consenting to a blood draw gives law enforcement direct evidence that may be used against them in court.
Refusing a Blood Draw and Obtaining a Search Warrant
If a driver refuses to consent to a blood draw, the police are typically required to obtain a search warrant before drawing blood. This was made clear in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Missouri v. McNeely (2013), which held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream is not, by itself, an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless blood draw. In other words, police cannot rely on the fact that alcohol dissipates over time to skip the warrant process.
In Nevada, law enforcement officers can seek a warrant from a judge or magistrate by demonstrating probable cause. In most cases, police officers can obtain a warrant relatively quickly by contacting a judge via telephone or electronic communication. Once the warrant is granted, police have legal authority to take a blood sample, even if the driver refused initially.
Warrant Exceptions: Exigent Circumstances
There are exceptions to the warrant requirement under Nevada law and federal law. One of the most common exceptions is the concept of exigent circumstances. If law enforcement can show that waiting for a warrant would lead to the destruction of evidence or pose a threat to public safety, they may proceed with a warrantless blood draw.
For example, in cases involving a serious car accident, where the driver is suspected of DUI and the police believe that obtaining a warrant would cause a significant delay in collecting evidence, they may argue that exigent circumstances justify the warrantless blood draw. These cases are fact-specific and vary depending on the circumstances. However, in the absence of exigent circumstances, police typically need a warrant to proceed with the blood draw if the driver refuses consent.
What Happens If Law Enforcement Fails to Obtain a Warrant?
If law enforcement conducts a blood draw without obtaining a warrant (and no valid exceptions apply), the results of the blood test may be inadmissible in court. This means that the prosecution cannot use the blood test as evidence against the defendant. Without this critical evidence, the state's case for a DUI conviction may be significantly weakened, leading to the possibility of a reduced charge or a dismissal of the case.
Josh Tomsheck, a Nationally Board-Certified Criminal Lawyer at Hofland & Tomsheck, has extensive experience defending clients in DUI cases. He understands how to challenge unlawful blood draws and fight for the suppression of illegally obtained evidence.
How Josh Tomsheck Can Help
When it comes to DUI defense in Nevada, an experienced attorney like Josh Tomsheck can thoroughly examine the circumstances of the DUI stop, the request for a blood draw, and the procedures followed by law enforcement. If there was no valid warrant or exigent circumstances, Josh can file a motion to suppress the blood test results. With years of experience handling DUI cases and an in-depth understanding of Nevada's search and seizure laws, Josh can craft a strong defense to protect your rights.
In Nevada, police generally need a search warrant to draw blood in DUI cases if the driver refuses to consent. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as exigent circumstances or voluntary consent. Understanding your rights in a DUI case is crucial, and having an experienced attorney like Josh Tomsheck on your side can help ensure that any unlawful evidence is challenged and that you receive the best possible defense.
If you are facing DUI charges and have questions about whether the police lawfully obtained a blood sample, contact Hofland & Tomsheck today for a consultation. Josh Tomsheck is ready to provide you with a comprehensive defense and fight for your rights.