MAYFIELD — A local defense attorney has praised the Kentucky Supreme Court’s ruling on warrantless blood tests in DUI cases.
The high court had recently determined that a DUI suspect’s refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test could no longer be used as evidence against them in court, and could not be used to elevate their penalties.
Emil Samson is an attorney with Null, Samson and Paitsel Attorneys at Law in Mayfield. He called the state supreme court’s “outstanding” decision a great victory for human rights.
“This is a great ruling, a great victory for human freedom, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” Samson said.
In Kentucky, he said there’s an “implied consent law” where a person driving a vehicle is already assumed and willing to take a blood, urine or breath test. Before the ruling, DUI suspects who refused blood the tests would lose their license.
Samson added that it was “insane” that warrantless blood draws were acceptable because of their intrusive nature.
According to the Associated Press, the ruling stemmed from the case of Jared McCarthy, who was arrested for DUI by the Owensboro Police Department in 2014. The ensuing court battle saw the trial judge decide that “McCarthy’s refusal to take the warrantless blood test could not be used as evidence of guilt, nor could it be used to enhance his sentence.”
The article further reads that while Kentucky’s High Court agreed with that decision, they did not agree with allowing the prosecution to submit McCarthy’s refusal as evidence to explain to the jury their lack of scientific evidence.
Assistant County Attorney Scott Robbins said that it will not only make prosecuting DUI suspects significantly more difficult, but removing the legal threats for refusing blood tests could embolden impaired drivers to stay behind the wheel.
Whereas before, a first offense DUI suspect refusing a blood test would have their license taken away until their case is resolved, now it never gets taken away.
“It’s really tied our hands on prosecuting DUIs, and I think it’s going to make Kentucky’s roads less safe,” Robbins said.
An officer investigating a DUI suspect would now need a warrant for a blood test, which Robbins said takes a lot of time to acquire. The longer it takes to get the warrant, the more drugs dissipate from the suspect’s system.
Graves County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Jeremy Prince has been a Drug Recognition Expert and Instructor since 2007. He noted that Kentucky State Law currently prohibits law enforcement officers of any kind from seeking a warrant unless the incident involves a serious injury or death.
Without the blood tests, officers will have to rely heavily on their own personal accounts of reckless driving, as well as standard field sobriety tests, he said.
“It may make our job a little tougher sometimes,” Prince said.
He added that officers have two hours before they would lose an “automatic presumption of impairment.”
Although the ruling took effect immediately, Robbins said enforcement could be put on hold once the Attorney General’s Office files its motion asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. If the motion fails, the Attorney General’s Office “will appeal to a higher federal court.”
“I wouldn’t be surprised to see the case go to the United States Supreme Court in the future, as it has such major implications in DUI enforcement,” Robbins said.