Motion to suppress evidence of drugs in the blood; Scope of the warrant; The particularity requirement; Good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule; Operating under the influence of drugs (OUID); Operating under the influence of an intoxicating substance (OWI); Operating a motor vehicle while visibly impaired (OWVI)

The court held “that the equities here strongly favor concluding that Deputy [S] believed that he had filled out the correct form for lawfully obtaining authorization to get a blood sample from defendant in order to test it for THC.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. He “was pulled over after [S] witnessed him driving erratically. [S] obtained a warrant to test defendant’s blood, which revealed the presence of THC. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of drugs in his blood, arguing that the scope of the warrant was limited to testing for the presence of alcohol only.” On appeal, he argued “that the search warrant expressly authorized alcohol testing only and that the second test of his blood for controlled substances exceeded the scope of the warrant in violation of the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Thus, he asserted “the results of the test indicating the presence of THC in his blood must be suppressed.” The court held that while “the search warrant includes the pre-printed limitation to test for alcohol only, . . . when considering the circumstances of this case, the chemical testing of defendant’s blood sample for evidence of THC did not exceed the scope of the warrant as it was written. The warrant stated that there was ‘probable cause to believe an OUID . . . has occurred.’ The face of the search warrant thus established that it was reasonably directed at obtaining evidence relevant to the investigation of an OWI and OWVI involving marijuana.” The court concluded that “the warrant included the affidavit, given its proximity and incorporation into the warrant application itself.” Thus, it held that “the testing of the second blood sample for evidence of drugs did not exceed the scope of the warrant.” The court added that even if it “interpreted the warrant more stringently, such that it plainly limited the search to test only for alcohol, . . . the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to save the fruits of the drug test in this case.” It was evident that S “intended to obtain a search warrant authorizing a blood draw to test for THC in defendant’s blood—not to test for alcohol. Unfortunately, the Sheriff’s Department used a preprinted search warrant form that was preset to order a blood draw to test for alcohol.” Although S “presumably could have physically printed the request and then altered it by hand to fit the facts of his case, he did not do so. The district court characterized this as a ‘clerical mistake,’ and the circuit court agreed that it was an ‘oversight.’” The court also agreed. It noted that “defendant conceded that probable cause existed to support testing for drugs, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that [S] did anything but act in objective good faith by relying on the warrant to request both alcohol and drug testing of defendant’s blood to further the criminal investigation.”