State v. Wilson: North Carolina DWI law is complex and evolving

May 30, 2013

In summer 2010, a Winston-Salem police officer made an arrest for possible drunk driving under unique circumstances that ended at a local hospital with a forced blood draw. According to the Winston-Salem Journal, the arrestee alleged that the officer sat on the defendant while a nurse drew the blood sample -- without the officer having obtained a court-ordered search warrant.

Specifically, the Journal reports that the policeman stopped at a local gas station on an unrelated matter and found defendant Kelvin Deon Wilson sitting in the driver's seat of a truck with an owner whose license was suspended. Wilson refused the officer's request for breath and blood tests, after which Wilson was taken to the hospital for the involuntary blood sample.

North Carolina statute

North Carolina law specifically allows law enforcement to "compel" a suspect to give blood or urine for chemical analysis without a court order if the officer has "probable cause ... under the circumstances" to "reasonably" think that if he or she takes the time to get a search warrant, the level of alcohol in the body that would support a driving while impaired charge will have dissipated.

State v. Wilson

In fall 2011, the trial court did not allow the blood test to be admitted as evidence in Wilson's DWI trial, finding that the forced blood draw had been unconstitutional, presumably as an unreasonable search and seizure. Wilson was nevertheless convicted of DWI, but was granted a new trial on appeal.

The State did not seek to get the blood-test evidence admitted at the second trial.

After the second trial, the court in January 2012 dismissed the DWI charges based on the unconstitutional blood draw. The prosecution appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing successfully that the lower court should not have dismissed the drunk driving charges because of the constitutional violation, but rather should only have suppressed (not allowed in) the blood-test evidence.

In its January 2013 opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed and sent the case back for reconsideration of the DWI charges. Since the prosecution was not trying to use the blood test results as evidence, they would not be considered. The Winston-Salem Journal says that it only took the jury on remand an hour to acquit Wilson.

The article cites Wilson's criminal defense attorney as saying that there was no evidence that Wilson was even driving at all or of his impairment. Reportedly, the officer testified that he sought the involuntary blood sample because he suspected Wilson was drunk and under the influence of cocaine because of Wilson's actions and appearance. Apparently, this was not enough for the jury to convict Wilson.

Missouri v. McNeely

In April 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the issue of forced blood draws in the drunk driving context in Missouri v. McNeely, holding that the "natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant."

The Supreme Court pointed out that a needle stick and forced blood withdrawal is a serious invasion of privacy and that, while not perfect, modern telephonic and electronic means of sharing information with a judge sometimes make getting a warrant quicker and easier.

Seek legal representation

Legal and constitutional principles surrounding DWI are complex, as illustrated by Wilson and McNeely. Anyone in North Carolina facing DWI charges should seek representation by an experienced criminal defense lawyer. North Carolina DWI sanctions are severe and a person facing prosecution needs a vigorous defense.

Article provided by White & Hearne, L.L.P.
Visit us at www.whiteandhearne.com