Argued: October 19, 2017
Gordon
J. MacDonald, attorney general (Nicole E.A. Thorspecken,
attorney, on the brief, and Sean R. Locke, assistant attorney
general, orally), for the State.
Christopher M. Johnson, chief appellate defender, of Concord,
on the brief and orally, for the defendant.
HICKS,
J.
The
defendant, James Bazinet, was convicted by a jury of
negligent homicide for driving a motor vehicle while he was
intoxicated and causing a fatal collision. See RSA
630:3, II (2016). He appeals the rulings of the Superior
Court (Colburn, J.) denying his motions to suppress
the results of testing done by the State on a blood draw
sample taken by the hospital after he arrived there
unconscious. We affirm.
The
following facts are drawn from the trial court's orders
denying the defendant's motions to suppress, or are
otherwise undisputed. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on December
1, 2012, the defendant crashed his vehicle into a tree in
Nashua. His female passenger died. Shortly after the crash,
Officer Berry of the Nashua Police Department arrived at the
scene. He examined the vehicle and noticed that neither the
passenger nor the driver had been wearing a seatbelt at the
time of the crash. He saw short grayish-brown hairs,
consistent with the defendant's hair color, embedded in
the glass of the front windshield. Berry also discovered a
thermos-type cup in the passenger side of the center console
containing liquid that smelled like alcohol.
The
defendant was taken to the emergency room at Southern New
Hampshire Medical Center (SNHMC). He arrived unconscious and
with critical injuries. After his arrival, a phlebotomist
drew five tubes of the defendant's blood, which were sent
to the hospital's internal lab for testing (hereinafter,
hospital blood draw sample). According to the phlebotomist,
it is the hospital's routine medical practice to
immediately obtain blood samples from trauma patients upon
their arrival. The phlebotomist testified that the blood
tests can reveal internal bleeding or show deficient
electrolyte levels.
Early
the next morning, Detective MacGregor of the Nashua Police
Department delivered a letter to SNHMC requesting, pursuant
to RSA 329:26, all hospital blood or urine samples taken from
the defendant. See RSA 329:26 (2017). Later that
day, Sergeant Mederos of the Nashua Police Department went to
the hospital and collected four of the blood tubes.
Thereafter, Officer Trefry of the Nashua Police Department
sought a warrant to test the blood. A circuit court judge
advised Trefry that he did not need a warrant because the
police were already in lawful possession of the blood; thus,
the judge did not sign the warrant. The State then ran a
blood alcohol content and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test on
the blood.
Prior
to trial, the defendant filed several motions to suppress. As
relevant here, the defendant relied upon Part I, Article 19
of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to
suppress: (1) the hospital blood draw sample; (2) the results
of the blood alcohol content test performed on the hospital
blood draw sample by the State; and (3) the results of the
DNA test performed on the hospital blood draw sample by the
State.
The
trial court denied the defendant's motions. The court
ruled that the defendant did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the hospital blood draw sample, and
that the State acted lawfully in obtaining and testing it for
blood alcohol content without a warrant. Citing a case
discussing the emergency exception to consent in the civil
context, the court found that the defendant implicitly
consented to medical treatment. The court further concluded
that "no 'search' occurred within the meaning of
our constitutions when the police later tested the
defendant's blood for DNA."
At
trial, the State presented testimony by a criminalist in the
New Hampshire Division of State Police forensic science
laboratory that the DNA obtained from the blood on the
windshield matched the defendant's DNA from the blood
draw sample. The State also offered testimony from two
firefighters who, upon arriving at the scene of the crash,
observed the defendant's feet pointed toward the
driver's side of the vehicle. In addition, one of the
firefighters testified to observing hair that "[s]eemed
to be from the male" in an imprint on the driver's
side of the windshield. The State further presented the
results of the defendant's blood alcohol content test it
performed on the hospital blood draw sample.
The
jury convicted the defendant of negligent homicide. This
appeal followed.
When
reviewing a trial court's rulings on a motion to
suppress, we accept the trial court's factual findings
unless they lack support in the record or are clearly
erroneous. State v. Davis, 161 N.H. 292, 294-95
(2010). We review the court's legal conclusions de
novo. Id. at 295.
On
appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court's
failure to suppress the results of the blood alcohol content
and DNA tests performed by the State violated his rights
under Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution
and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. With respect to both the DNA and the blood
alcohol content tests the State ran on the hospital blood
draw sample, the defendant argues that the trial court erred
by relying upon the emergency exception to the requirement of
consent to find that he implicitly consented to the hospital
blood draw. As to the DNA results, the defendant argues that
the trial court erred by finding that he did not maintain an
expectation of privacy in his DNA contained within ...