Background
After responding to a crash alert, deputies found Bailey Reed Vande Slunt unconscious in a severely damaged vehicle in a ditch. He was removed through the passenger side and taken by ambulance to a hospital. A deputy observed signs of intoxication, administered a preliminary breath test that registered .16, and arrested Vande Slunt for second-offense OWI.
At the hospital, while Vande Slunt was in a bed receiving treatment, the deputy read the Informing the Accused form and asked for consent to draw blood. Vande Slunt said he understood, declined a rereading, and repeatedly agreed to the test. He later entered a no-contest plea to OWI, second offense, while preserving his challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress the blood draw.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. It held that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Vande Slunt voluntarily consented to the blood draw, making the warrantless seizure permissible under the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the court found no deception, threats, or coercion by the deputy; a cooperative setting; and clear affirmative responses from Vande Slunt. Although he had been injured, was receiving hospital treatment, and had initially been unconscious at the crash scene, the record and body-camera footage supported the circuit court’s finding that he was awake, coherent, understood the form, and was capable of voluntary consent when the request was made.
Key Takeaways
- Hospital treatment and crash-related injuries do not by themselves make consent to a blood draw involuntary.
- Courts assess consent under the totality of the circumstances, including police conduct and the defendant’s condition and responses.
- The circuit court’s factual finding that Vande Slunt was awake and capable of consenting was not clearly erroneous.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that an OWI blood draw may rest on actual, voluntary consent even when the driver is being treated at a hospital after a serious crash. The critical question is the person’s ability to understand and freely respond at the time consent is requested, not the mere existence of injuries or medical care.