fbpx

Split Court Rules Blood Not Evidence Until Removed from Body

Blood, while in the body, is not evidence that can be tampered with, court says

By Molly Priddy

HELENA — A split Montana Supreme Court has ruled that a person’s blood is not evidence that can be tampered with until it is removed from their body — even if a judge has issued a warrant authorizing blood to be drawn from a person.

Tuesday’s 4-3 decision overturns a Missoula woman’s conviction for tampering with evidence for fleeing a hospital after police obtained a warrant to test her blood-alcohol level in a September 2013 felony DUI case. She was not located until the following day, when a test of her blood was no longer relevant to the DUI charge.

Attorneys for Christina Louise Harrison argued that in 2001 justices had ruled that blood inside a person’s body cannot be considered “evidence.” In that case, a man left the scene of the crash and drank alcohol before he was arrested up to 90 minutes later, making it impossible to determine how intoxicated he was at the time of the crash.

The state argued and the three dissenting justices agreed that Harrison’s case was different because the Legislature in 2011 passed a law allowing officers to apply for warrants for blood tests in certain DUI cases.

Prosecutors argued Harrison had been in custody since she was stopped for driving at night without headlights, she had failed field sobriety tests and that a warrant had been issued — meaning a judge had determined that a blood test was relevant evidence that must be collected.

Those factors still don’t undermine the clear ruling in the 2001 case that a person’s blood alcohol level “is not evidence until it exists in a state capable of analysis,” Justice Beth Baker wrote on behalf of the majority.

Harrison, 54, was convicted of the felony DUI and remains on probation through November 2019.

The sentence she received for evidence tampering ran concurrent with the DUI sentence so the ruling will not reduce the amount of time she’s under state supervision, state officials said.

The majority also rejected the state’s argument that a ruling in Harrison’s favor would tie the hands of law enforcement in conducting investigations.

The justices said Harrison’s actions at the hospital to evade the court-ordered blood draw resulted in her conviction for escape and could have brought a charge for obstructing a peace officer.

“In other words, there are specific statutory tools to ensure accountability for offenders who impede lawful investigations,” Baker wrote.