People v. Harrison, 2016 IL App (5th) 150048 (February 2016). Episode 141 (Duration 14:58)
This force blood draw was not suppressed because it was done before the McNeely decision and binding precedent was in place…but there is a lot more going on here.
Defendant was leaving a bar when he t-boned a motorcyclist. The victim lost his leg. Defendant failed all SFSTs. He refused to blow, and the officer immediately transported him to a hospital so that his blood could be drawn.
Defendant maintained that the blood draw was a nonconsensual, warrantless search and seizure and that “there were no exigent circumstances which would excuse the need for a warrant.”
Exclusion Rule Not Applicable
The state contended that the exclusionary rule was not applicable because the officer acted in good-faith reliance on established precedent holding that warrantless, nonconsensual blood draws were permissible pursuant to section 11-501.2(c)(2).
The appellate court agreed with the State. In doing so it assumed 11-501.2(c)(2) is still constitutional after Missouri v. McNeely. The cases before McNeely clearly allowed a warrantless blood draw, thus the good faith exception prohibiting the application of the exclusionary rule was appropriate.
Is It Constitutional?
Application of the good faith exception depends on the constitutionality of 625 ILCS 5/11-501.2(c)(2).
If the law is constitutional then good faith exception applies. If it is not constitutional then good faith exception does not apply.
So, the Illinois Supreme Court may have to give us a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of this specific section.
…and if the Court says the law is unconstitutional then what prevents the entire implied consent paradigm from tumbling down?