Patnodecaused a serious traffic accident in which two people were killed. Patnode was himself knocked unconscious. At the scene of the accident, the police obtained a warrant and took a blood sample from Patnode for testing. The subsequent tests revealed that his blood had a high alcohol level, and Patnode was arrested at the hospital for drunk driving. Patnode hired an attorney, who argued that the blood test should not be admitted into evidence because it had been taken without his consent.
Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST Patnode?
The court ruled AGAINST Patnode. In Arizona, a person voluntarily agrees to provide a breath, urine and/or blood sample when requested to do so by a police offer. As Patnode was unconscious, and as the police had a warrant, there was no unconstitutional “search”. The court held that the blood test was admissible, and Patnode was convicted of DUI.