Background
Sean Michael Marlin was driving when his vehicle drifted onto the Turnpike shoulder and struck four motorcycles, killing one person and injuring two others. The State charged him with multiple DUI offenses, including DUI manslaughter and DUI with serious bodily injury.
After Marlin refused to voluntarily provide blood, law enforcement had first responders obtain a blood draw without a warrant. Marlin moved to suppress the results, arguing that he neither consented nor faced exigent circumstances. The circuit court initially denied suppression based on language in an earlier Fourth District decision, but granted rehearing and suppressed the blood draw.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed. A nonconsensual blood draw is a Fourth Amendment search that ordinarily requires a warrant unless actual consent, exigent circumstances, or another recognized exception applies. Florida’s statutory implied-consent provisions and probable cause alone do not supply an exception to the warrant requirement.
The court clarified that its statement in State v. Acevedo that an officer with probable cause could “coerce” a blood draw was unnecessary dicta, not a holding establishing a probable-cause exception. It receded from that language to the extent it suggested otherwise. Because this draw occurred without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, suppression was proper.
Key Takeaways
- Probable cause alone does not authorize a compelled DUI blood draw.
- Statutory implied consent is not actual consent for Fourth Amendment purposes.
- Acevedo does not create a probable-cause exception to the warrant requirement for blood draws.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that officers investigating serious DUI crashes must obtain a warrant for a nonconsensual blood draw unless case-specific exigent circumstances or another recognized exception applies. It also eliminates ambiguity from Acevedo that prosecutors had invoked to argue for compelled blood draws based solely on probable cause.