Supreme Court rules police can force blood-alcohol tests

The state Supreme Court handed a major victory Thursday to prosecutors in drunken-driving cases, ruling that police officers may obtain a search warrant for a blood test even if the driver has refused to take a voluntary breath test.

The 7-2 decision gives officers broader authority to gather key evidence when they suspect motorists of driving while under the influence, although practical considerations will generally limit blood tests to the most serious cases.

"I think it's a big day for us because it opens a new avenue of investigation in DUI cases to try and get the best evidence before the jury," King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg said of the long-awaited ruling.

The court, citing language added to the law in 2004, found that obtaining a warrant for drivers who decline the breath test does not violate the state's consent law, due-process rights or legal fairness doctrines.

"We hold that the legislative intent is plain on the face of the statute that an officer may obtain a blood-alcohol test pursuant to a warrant regardless of the implied consent statute," Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote for the majority.

Even without that clarity, Fairhurst wrote, the court could reach the same result based on the Legislature's overall goal of deterring drunken driving.

The court further ruled that officers are not required to inform drivers that they might seek a warrant for a blood test.

Under state law, drivers may refuse a breath test, but face the loss of their driver's license for at least one year.

Justices Richard Sanders and James Johnson dissented, with Sanders writing that obtaining a blood sample from drivers who don't consent to a breath test tramples on their right.

"If we accept the majority's reasoning, a driver's refusal to consent ... would be meaningless," Sanders wrote.

Doug Cowan, a Kirkland attorney who has handled DUI cases for 40 years, said he was appalled by the majority's ruling.

He said the ruling means drivers who refuse the breath test with the consequence of losing their license now face the possibility of not being told officers can still get a warrant for a blood test.

"It's an unfair result," said Cowan, who was not involved in arguing the case.

The ruling stemmed from a Seattle Municipal Court case in which Judge Judith Hightower suppressed the results of a blood test given to motorcyclist Robert St. John, who was charged with driving under the influence after being seriously injured in an accident on July 24, 2005. St. John refused a breath test, prompting a Seattle police officer to obtain a warrant for a blood test.

A King County Superior Court judge reversed the lower-court ruling, leading to an appeal by St. John to the state Supreme Court.

The prosecution against St. John was halted while the case was appealed, but now could go forward, said Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr.

Satterberg said the high court's decision will be particularly helpful in thwarting defense attorneys who for years have found ways to block admissibility of breath tests.

He said blood tests won't be used in every case where drivers refuse the breath test because of the sheer volume of such cases, as well as the time required to obtain a warrant and administer a hospital blood test.

"But it's worth the effort in the right case," Satterberg said, including those in which drivers may face a felony DUI charge after at least four previous convictions for driving while under the influence in a 10-year period.

Drivers can also be charged with felony DUI if they have convictions for vehicular homicide or vehicular assault within 10 years.

Carr said his office has developed a protocol with the Seattle police DUI squad and city judges to limit blood tests to instances where there is an accident or concern about a high level of intoxication.

Steve Miletich: 206-464-3302