Supreme Court hears oral arguments in DWI case over collection of blood

The Supreme Court of Missouri heard oral arguments on Sept. 9 in the case of a woman who was charged with a misdemeanor for driving while intoxicated. At issue was whether the collection and testing of her blood was legally admissible.

The defendant in this case, Amanda Mire, was charged in 2022 in Greene County for driving under the influence of alcohol. The state appealed the lower court’s previous decision to suppress Mire’s statements made after being administered Midazolam.

Mire’s attorneys defended the lower court’s decision in their response to the state, saying seizure of Mire’s blood during the police’s testing of it “violated the Fourth Amendment and Article I, sec. 15 of the Missouri Constitution because there was substantial evidence for the trial court to find that defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily verbally consent to the blood draw in that she was involuntarily administered a drug and experienced the tranquilizing effects of the drug prior to being read the implied-consent law and verbally consenting to the blood draw.”

In its points relied on, the state counters that the defendant impliedly consented to the blood draw “regardless of the administration of Midazolam,” that she never explicitly withdrew this consent and that the Miranda waiver was valid because there was no evidence the Midazolam caused her to be incapable of voluntarily waiving her rights.

Attorneys for the state also argued that Mire’s motion to suppress the statements and the physical evidence were “boilerplate and did not incorporate the specific facts and circumstances of the case beyond the date of the alleged crime.”

The state was represented during arguments by Nathan Aquino of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City while Mire was represented by Erica Mynarich of Cantin Mynarich in Springfield.

Facts of the incident

Three years ago, when the incident occurred, a witness called police after watching Mire accelerate while at a red light, hit the curb of a median that separated the northbound and southbound lanes of the intersection, and hit a street sign, according to court documents.

When the witness exited her vehicle to check on Mire, she found her unresponsive with her head to her chest. Another bystander called 911.

Officers joined Mire inside an ambulance as she was taken away from the scene and stated on the record that she was “acting frantic and slapping at them as they’re trying to talk to her and administer care;” “Staring up intently at the ceiling and not making eye contact with anybody as . . . they’re trying to talk to her;” And she appeared to be “in some sort of distress.”

Another officer searched Mire’s car and found alcohol containers in her purse and a large empty bottle of vodka in the center console. The officer asked Mire what she might have taken and she said she had taken vodka. However, the officers acknowledged in their report that Mire did not seem to be in a “normal state of mind as a layperson would be,” at the time of the interaction.

Because Mire was not in a state to accept care and was not cooperating with medical personnel, they had to administer Midazolam to be able to insert an IV. Medical staff did not ask for defendant’s consent before administering the drug, according to the court.

After arriving at the hospital and connecting Mire to medical equipment, the officer informed her she was under arrest and read her the Miranda warnings, gave her the implied-consent disclosure and gave her the no-refusal warning.

The state argued in its brief that Mire indicated she understood her rights and consented to the blood draw.

Questions for the court

The court must consider in this appeal whether the lower court erred in suppressing the evidence in Mire’s case and whether her consent to the testing was valid given the effects of the sedative.

It is also asked to consider whether Mire gave implied consent to the test and whether that consent was never withdrawn.

Mire’s attorney pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, in which the court specifically rejected the argument that implied consent satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a warrantless blood draw must be based on actual consent or an exigency.

“Thus, regardless of whether defendant impliedly consented to a blood test under § 577.020, once defendant was asked by the officer if she would consent to a test, her explicit consent also had to be knowing and voluntary to satisfy the Fourth Amendment,” Mire’s attorney wrote. “It is absurd that the state now argues that the trial court’s analysis regarding the validity of defendant’s express consent was a pointless intellectual exercise because implied consent is somehow an exception to the Fourth Amendment.”

At the heart of both the state and defendant’s arguments in the interlocutory appeal is the difference between voluntary and implied consent under state law.

The case is: State of Missouri v. Amanda M. Mire, Case no. SC100967