Court of Appeal upholds man’s murder conviction once again | Courts

Four months after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that police generally cannot draw blood from a driver who has revoked the consent given to him by state law, the Court of Appeals has again upheld the murder conviction of a man accused of murder, arguing that… that the police acted in good faith in taking his blood.

Under the rule of Colorado “express consent” lawmotorists automatically agree to submit to a blood or breath test if an officer has probable cause to suspect them of impaired driving. If drivers refuse to be tested within two hours of being stopped, the refusal can be used against them in court and is grounds for revoking their driver’s license.

Previously, Colorado judges have questioned whether state-issued consent means police can shed the blood of an unconscious drunken suspect. Yes, the court took it into account People vs Hydebecause “there is no constitutional right to refuse a blood alcohol test.”

But the case of Christopher Oneil Tarr has raised questions about whether the Colorado Legislature can achieve the consent needed to overcome driver objections to real-time blood draws. Having abandoned his radical statement in Hyde, The Supreme Court concluded in June that police need a warrant—or an exception to the warrant requirement—before drawing blood from an objecting suspect.

The judges sent Tarr’s case back to the Court of Appeal to determine whether police had a valid justification for the warrantless blood draw. Last week, a panel of three Court of Appeal judges agreed that there is one: “Integrity.“

Late one evening in August 2016, Tarr was driving drunk in Aurora, significantly speeding, when he crashed into killed Dalton McCreary at a pedestrian crossing. An Arapahoe County jury found Tarr guilty of vehicular homicide and other offenses.

After the crash, rescuers took Tarr to the hospital. Law enforcement told him about Colorado’s consent law. Tarr initially refused a blood test. When police learned of McCreery’s death, they told Tarr there was a forced blood draw on the table, which is permitted in vehicular homicide cases. Tarr again refused to give his consent, but did not resist while his blood was taken. The results showed Tarr’s blood alcohol content was approximately four times the legal limit at the time he struck McCreary.

Before the trial, Tarr tried to block the test results from being used as evidence, but District Court Judge Ben L. Leutweiler disagreed, holding that the blood draw met the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal subsequently felt obliged to conclude in accordance with Hyde ruling that Tarr did not have the right to revoke consent automatically provided by state law.

After the Supreme Court clarified that Tarr’s objection had merit, the appellate panel found that the blood test results were nonetheless admissible at Tarr’s trial because the police acted on their good faith belief that they could recover blood in connection with alleged vehicular homicide.

“It is noteworthy that at the time of the blood draw, no Colorado appellate decision held that a motorist could revoke his lawful consent to a breath or blood test,” Judge Lino S. Lipinski de Orlov wrote. according to October 24.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Tarr case, “police officers throughout Colorado are on notice that they must obtain a search warrant to obtain a blood sample from a motorist who has withdrawn his legal consent – even one for whom the officers there are reasonable grounds to believe that he committed vehicular homicide.” – Lipinsky continued. “But it was believed that the officers were not previously aware that a warrant was required in such circumstances.”

The thing is PPeople vs Tarr.