Argued: December 15, 2016
K. Saucier, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), York County District
Attorneys Office, Springvale, for appellant State of Maine
McNally, Esq. (orally), Woodman Edmands Danylik Austin Smith
& Jacques, P.A., Biddeford, for appellee Robert I. Boyd
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and
The State of Maine, with the approval of the Attorney
General, see 15 M.R.S. § 2115-A(1), (5)
(2015); M.R. App. P. 21(b), appeals from an
order of the court (York County, Driscoll, J.)
granting Robert I. Boyd Jr.s motion to suppress evidence
obtained by drawing his blood and testing it for alcohol
without obtaining a search warrant. The State challenges the
courts determination that the State failed to prove that Boyd
consented to the blood draw, and argues that the search of
Boyds blood did not violate the Fourth Amendment. We affirm
the order of suppression.
The court found the following facts, all of which are
supported by competent evidence in the record. See State
v. Morrison, 2015 ME 153, ¶¶ 2, 5, 128 A.3d
1060. At about 10:00 a.m. on October 14, 2015, an officer of
the Sanford Police Department stopped a vehicle operated by
Boyd for continuing to have an expired inspection sticker one
month after having been stopped for the expired sticker. In
speaking with Boyd, the officer noticed the smell of alcohol
on Boyds breath. The officer asked Boyd how much he had had
to drink that day. Boyd said that he was hung over, but he
denied having had any alcohol that day.
The officer conducted multiple field sobriety tests and,
based on what he observed, determined that he had probable
cause to arrest Boyd for operating under the influence.
See 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A) (2016). The officer
arrested Boyd and transported him to the Sanford Police
Department to administer a breath test for alcohol.
See 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(4) (2016). The machine
there malfunctioned, and the officer sought another location
with an operational machine. The officer transported Boyd to
the Wells Police Department where, during the fifteen-minute
observation period before a breath test could be
administered, Boyd coughed several times, which could bring
alcohol into the mouth and invalidate the test results.
The officer then located a paramedic to draw a sample of
Boyds blood. The officer did not obtain Boyds consent to the
blood test. Nor did the officer read any warnings to Boyd
about the consequences of refusing to submit to testing,
see 29-A M.R.S. § 2521(3) (2016), seek or
obtain a warrant for the blood test, or inform Boyd that he
could request that a physician perform the blood draw,
see 29-A M.R.S. §2521(2) (2016). Boyd did not
expressly refuse or object to the blood testing, and the
paramedic drew his blood.
On November 20, 2015, Boyd was charged by complaint with
operating under the influence (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. §
2411(1-A)(A), (5) (2016), based in part on the allegation of
a blood test measuring 0.15 grams of alcohol per 100
milliliters of blood. Boyd pleaded not guilty and moved to
suppress all evidence obtained through the blood test. The
court held a hearing on the motion on March 15, 2016.
In an order entered nine days later, the court ordered the
suppression of the blood test result, finding that the
officer did not obtain a warrant or seek Boyds consent, and
that Boyds "amenability and acquiescence without
objection to [the officer]s direction/command/request that he
submit to a blood draw does not rise to the level of
consent." The court concluded that there were no exigent
circumstances generating an exception to the warrant
requirement and that the blood sample was obtained in
violation of the Fourth Amendment.
With the written approval of the Attorney General, the State
appealed from the courts order. See 15 M.R.S.