Taylor v. Commonwealth (P)

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress a warrantless blood draw.

At the time the officer arrested the defendant, Virginia law was that the defendant had, by driving on the highway, impliedly consented to provide a blood or breath sample after being arrested for DUI. While it can be argued that Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), invalidated implied consent statutes that threaten criminal sanctions for refusing to provide a blood sample, Birchfield didn’t conclude that its holding was retroactive. And there is no evidence in the record that the officer engaged in willful or negligent conduct in obtaining the blood sample. Under these circumstances, no deterrent purpose exists that would be served by excluding otherwise relevant evidence.

Affirmed.

Taylor v. Commonwealth (P), No. 0719-18-2, Apr. 16, 2019. CAV (Petty) from Chesterfield (Rockwell).



Categories: Court of Appeals of Virginia, Opinions, Published

Tags: ,

%d bloggers like this: