Take out the conduct of the nurse and the cop. Is the request reasonable? A crash, during a criminal act, results in a fatality. The driver of the other car, although a victim, is still a part of the investigation.
The supreme court decision they are citing specifically deals with DUI arrests.
The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. The impact of breath tests on privacy is slight, and the need for BAC testing is great," Alito wrote. But "we reach a different conclusion with respect to blood tests. Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test. Respondents have offered no satisfactory justification for demanding the more intrusive alternative without a warrant."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote separately to concur with the Court's stance on warrantless blood tests while dissenting from the Court's acceptance of warrantless breath tests. "Because no governmental interest categorically makes it impractical for an officer to obtain a warrant before measuring a driver's alcohol level, the Fourth Amendment prohibits such searches without a warrant, unless exigent circumstances exist in a particular case," Sotomayor wrote. In other words, Sotomayor would have voided both types of warrantless DUI tests for violating the Fourth Amendment.
The wording, exigent circumstances, is going to be the basis for the officers demands here. The exigent circumstances, which usually applies to warrantless entry, covers escape, evidence, and emergency. The blood work of the victim may fall into the "evidence" category here seeing how its time sensitive.
And I did read the 2007 ruling citing "implied consent"
In light of the foregoing, it is difficult for us to imagine that the United States Supreme Court could muster the assurance that the consequences of alcohol dissipation are so great and the prospects for prompt warrant acquisition so remote that per se exigent circumstance status be awarded to seizures of blood for the purpose of gathering blood-alcohol evidence. Accordingly, we decline to grant per se exigent circumstance status to warrantless seizures of blood evidence. However, it is our opinion that the State did meet its obligation in this case to show that under the totality of the circumstances, both probable cause and exigent circumstances justified its warrantless blood draw.
I'll acknowledge that unlike a suspect in a DUI, where there has to be some suspicion of intoxication, there was no suspicion of the victim here. No probable cause. So it would come down to consent which he was unable to provide.
I'll also acknowledge that this involves a homicide investigation and not a mere petty offense.
I'm curious to know if they even attempted to obtain a warrant. Why they wouldn't even attempt it, or at the least have a consultation with someone from a legal team for the department, or a representative of the Districts attorneys office, is a valid question. I haven't heard it mentioned.
I'm also curious to know why the nurse was the only person arguing with the cop? Why does it come down to just her and not the hospital administrators? There must have been other nurses available to do the draw. Or was she the sole person standing in the way that wouldn't allow it? I get she was on the phone with someone but was there no one present at the hospital in a higher role?
I don't know who was right or wrong, but I don't think the answer is that simple.