DUI Defense in Utah -
Warrants
Assuming that police
unconstitutionally arrest a person for DUI without probable cause, is that
Fourth Amendment violation cured if the police subsequently obtain a
warrant to draw blood from the suspect?

Recent
case decisions have caused some confusion on what effect a warrant will
have on the admissibility of evidence discovered as a result of an
unconstitutional search or seizure. This area of law is continually
developing. If you are facing prosecution for
DUI
or other criminal
charges in Utah, the assistance of an experienced
criminal attorney is
vital.
Contact us
today to see how we can help you.
Utah v. Strieff
Analysis
The United States Supreme Court in the case of
Utah v. Strieff
addressed an issue similar to but distinguishable from the question of
whether a warrant for a blood draw can cure an initial traffic stop
that was made in violation of the
Fourth
Amendment. If the defense to a DUI
charge is based on a Fourth Amendment violation, understanding how the
opinion in
Strieff can
be distinguished is critical.
The facts in
Strieff
involved a suspect who was initially stopped by a police officer who
acted without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a crime
had occurred or was about to be committed. Following the unlawful stop
and as a result of the unconstitutional detention of the suspect, the
officer discovered that there was an outstanding warrant to arrest the
suspect on an unrelated case. The officer proceeded to place the
suspect under formal arrest and to conduct a search incident to arrest.
During that search, drugs were found on the suspect. The discovery of
the
drugs led to the filing of new criminal charges.

The
Supreme Court in
Strieff
held that the outstanding arrest warrant was an intervening
circumstance that served to attenuate the officer's initial illegal
detention of the suspect. Critical to the Court's analysis was the fact
that the arrest warrant in
Strieff
was a valid, pre-existing warrant that had nothing to do with the
officer's unlawful detention of the suspect. As such, the Court held
that the search conducted incident to the arrest on the pre-existing
warrant was sufficiently attenuated from the initial unlawful stop. The
court thus reversed the lower courts decisions that had found the
search unconstitutional and had granted Strieff's motion to suppress.
The search and conviction were both upheld.
Applying Strieff
to DUI Defense in Utah
It is common practice for police in a Utah DUI case to obtain from the
court a warrant to draw blood from a DUI suspect when that person has
refused to consent to a chemical test for the detection of alcohol or
drugs. Such a warrant must be supported by probable cause to believe
that the person has violated one of Utah's DUI laws.
Most often, evidence to support a finding of probable cause is obtained
during the police officer's interactions with and observations of a
driver following a traffic stop. Statements made by the driver
following the traffic stop can also contribute to the evidence
supporting a probable cause finding. If the totality of the evidence
supports a finding of probable cause to believe that the suspect has
committed a criminal
DUI violation, the court may issue a warrant
allowing the police to forcibly obtain a blood sample from the suspect.
Even assuming that the
warrant was validly supported by probable cause,
the admissibility of the test results can still be challenged if the
initial traffic stop was unconstitutional. To determine whether a
constitutional challenge and motion to suppress are viable, an attorney
should look closely at the initial basis for the stop, the scope of
questioning by the police officer, and the duration or length of the
stop. If the officers actions were not properly supported by evidence
and information available to the officer at the time, then evidence
found to be "fruit of the poisonous tree" can be suppressed by the
court.
Some prosecutors in Utah have argued that the Supreme Court's opinion
in
Strieff
allows a police officer in a DUI case to cure an unconstitutional
traffic stop by subsequently obtaining a warrant to draw the suspect's
blood. This position is not consistent with the decision in
Strieff.
In a DUI case, the warrant for a blood draw is the direct
result of the officer's actions in stopping, detaining, and questioning
the DUI suspect. The warrant is usually only obtained following the
arrest for DUI. If the initial stop was not supported by reasonable
suspicion, if the scope or duration of the initial stop was
unconstitutionally expanded, or if the arrest was not properly
supported by probable cause, then the warrant for the blood draw is the
direct result of those unconstitutional actions. The warrant itself
should be viewed as fruit of that poisonous
tree, and any evidence obtained as a result of the warrant should be
subject to suppression..
The arrest and search incident to arrest in
Strieff were
approved because the arrest warrant existed
previously to and independently of the unlawful detention of the
suspect by police. Although the Court acknowledged that the initial
detention of the suspect by police was not constitutionally supported,
the Court held that the previous existence of an otherwise valid
warrant was an intervening factor that cured the initial constitutional
violation. The independent warrant served to attenuate the subsequent
arrest and search from the initial unconstitutional detention.
In a DUI case based on an initial unconstitutional stop or detention,
the warrant for a blood draw typically comes about as a direct result
of the unlawful and
unconstitutional detention or arrest of the suspect. The blood draw
warrant is not and should not be treated as an
"intervening warrant" or an "intervening circumstance." It does nothing
to attenuate the connection between an unconstitutional arrest
and the
evidence obtained as a result of the warrant. Instead, the warrant is a
direct link in the chain of
unconstitutional conduct.
Finding a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Utah

If
you are facing prosecution for
DUI or other criminal charges in Utah,
the assistance of an
experienced
criminal defense attorney can be vital to a successful defense.
Contact us today to see
what the right
criminal
lawyer can do for you.