I believe you're talking around me. A warrant has always been required. The issue here was on the issue of exigency. They ruled it wasn't an exigency so there was no exception to the already existing warrant requirement.
I'm not trying to insult you LV, don't take it personally. I am insulting your attitude, and it isn't just you, it is everyone, all professions, all the time. We all do what we have to do, because we have to do it that way, or someone cheaper, or easier to deal with will come and and take over. It's all of us like that. But we don't have to defend it. I'm sure you do everything in your power, and to the best of your ability. And for that you should be, and likely are, celebrated. But at the heart of this conversation is you defending the practice of not getting a warrant because there is precedent, or whatever correct legal word, that allows for it. And you defend it because it's reality, it's your job, you have expertise with it, whatever. But you are still defending it. If you said: we don't have the tech yet, but it's coming, and once we do, we'll see all these situations go away because warrants will be so easy to come by, courts will start requiring them... then neither of us wastes our time having this conversation. But, to me, that isn't what you are saying. And yes, I'm going to be a [penis] to that attitude. And if that happens to be you, so be it.
So, supposing whatever legal requirements for an exigency had been met in this case (from the OP). What would have been the proper way from the policeman to have handled this?
I think it's true as technology improves, a warrant will always be required. And, that's the way it should be. We've developed the best systems that we have with the resources we have to always get warrants now, but there are certainly still times when it just simply isn't possible without letting a criminal go. The technology will be available first in urban areas and will trickle down to areas like where I work. That's been my attitude the whole time.
My experience certainly doesn't cover all experiences, but I can say that I have never been asked, nor have I seen anyone else be asked, to draw blood from any person that has been determined to be a victim (or not at fault) in a motor vehicle accident. Again, the NCSHP has typically been the investigating agency, but even if it is a local police department, the exact same blood draw kit is used, it is provided by the investigating agency, and they have already appeared before a magistrate or gotten consent from the person in question to obtain the sample. The best example that I can think of where law enforcement would want any blood or exam findings from the patient would be in a presumed sexual assault, to which I would ask why would you ever not want to have consent AND a search warrant in hand prior to collecting any evidence from the victim? This is for the victim's protection, and for their case, as you avoid having your evidence thrown out under the basis of it being improperly collected, whether improperly collected is referring to the technique of collection used or the leagality/chain of custody of the collection itself.
You would definitely not want to do this under most circumstances. I will you my hospital's lab as an example. Alcohol is a blood test, so the results of it would be pretty accurate, assuming that the analyzer is in good working order. However, any other drug screen that we do is resulted from a urine sample. They place a drop on the testing card...and wait for the lines to show/not show. A "positive" drug screen is actually an absence of a negative, which means "With the naked eye and this card, we can't say that there is no XYZ in this sample." You can order a more accurate kit online for home use. This is all part of why our tox screen reports specifically say that they can't be used as evidence in court. We wouldn't even use them as a basis to fire an employee who we thought might be diverting narcotics. Considering all of these factors, we haven't even gotten into the legalities/technicalities of collection methods, testing methods, certifications of those involved in the collection and/or testing, etc.
You might not have but I can show you numerous cases I'm currently prosecuting where we have blood from victims and the THP literally has that as a policy.
THP usually witnesses the draw; the sample is given to them by the hospital staff. A trooper then takes it to the TBI Crime Lab for analysis. It is checked in by an evidence technician and logged which Trooper checks it in. And then it is placed in a vault there until it is tested by a forensic scientist.
I understand completely. Thanks for the info. I appreciate you taking the time to share your expertise for the benefit of my understanding.
