Background
After an officer located a stolen vehicle, its driver, Marcin Staszak, fled at high speed and crashed into another vehicle, causing it to overturn. Staszak then attempted to flee on foot while carrying a bottle of Jack Daniels. Deputy Brian Johnson apprehended him and observed glassy, bloodshot eyes, poor balance, a strong odor of alcohol, and apparent injuries from the serious collision.
Emergency personnel treated Staszak at the scene and transported him to a hospital. There, Johnson read him Wisconsin’s Informing the Accused form and requested an evidentiary blood test. Johnson treated Staszak’s response—“I am not in the right state of mind to make a decision”—as a refusal. Although Johnson intended to seek a warrant, hospital staff reported that Staszak’s blood pressure was dropping, his condition was worsening quickly, and treatment could not wait. Johnson requested a warrantless blood draw approximately two hours after the crash. After the circuit court denied Staszak’s suppression motion, he pleaded no contest to fifth- or sixth-offense OWI and other charges.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed, holding that the warrantless blood draw was justified by exigent circumstances under the totality of the circumstances. This was not a routine OWI investigation: the case involved a serious crash, multiple victims, Staszak’s injuries and deteriorating condition, pressing medical treatment, the natural dissipation of alcohol, and the approaching end of Wisconsin’s three-hour window for presumptive admissibility of blood-test results.
The court also concluded that Johnson did not create the exigency through unreasonable delay. Although he likely could have begun seeking a warrant while Staszak received treatment in an ambulance, it was reasonable to prioritize Staszak’s medical condition, avoid interfering with EMS, and wait in hopes that his condition would stabilize. Reading Staszak his Miranda rights during that period did not make the delay unreasonable because Johnson did so in response to statements Staszak was making about the crash.
Key Takeaways
- Alcohol’s natural dissipation does not automatically justify a warrantless blood draw; courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances.
- A suspect’s rapidly worsening medical condition, uncertain treatment timeline, and the approaching three-hour evidentiary window can establish exigent circumstances.
- An officer does not necessarily create an exigency merely because a warrant application could have started earlier; reasonable medical and emergency priorities may justify the delay.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Wisconsin courts distinguish routine impaired-driving investigations from complex emergencies in which medical care, accident-scene duties, and preservation of blood-alcohol evidence compete for officers’ attention. The constitutional question turns on objective reasonableness under the circumstances, not on whether an officer could, in hindsight, have chosen a faster investigative sequence.
The opinion is unpublished and, under Wisconsin rules, generally may not be cited as precedent or authority except for limited permitted purposes.