Challenging Blood Test Results in Massachusetts OUI/DUI Cases

If you’re charged with OUI/DUI in Massachusetts following an accident or medical emergency requiring hospital care, police might request a blood test under the implied consent law and you can challenge the blood test results. This law, outlined in G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(f)(1), mandates drivers submit to chemical tests—either breath or blood—to determine blood alcohol content (BAC) when arrested for suspected impairment.

When Police Request Blood Tests

In certain accident cases, police may issue a citation rather than make an arrest. Without an arrest, implied consent laws don’t authorize police to demand a blood sample. Hospitals, however, may conduct blood tests for medical reasons, including ethanol screenings.

Accidents often prompt police to seek an immediate threat license suspension from the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV). This is due to the longer processing times for blood tests compared to breathalyzer results. Such suspensions remain until the individual proves they’re not a public safety threat.

Legal and Scientific Challenges to Blood Tests

Blood tests present numerous legal and scientific issues that can affect how evidence is handled in court. Key considerations include constitutional protections and the reliability of forensic methods used for analysis.

Constitutional Protections: The Fourth Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court affirms that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their blood. This means you have the constitutional right to refuse a government-requested blood test. Drawing blood is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, as seen in landmark cases like Schmerber v. California and Missouri v. McNeely.

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

For police to obtain a blood sample without a warrant, exceptions must apply—such as voluntary consent or emergency circumstances. Consent must be given freely, and the burden is on the state to prove its voluntariness. Notably, in Commonwealth v. Dennis, the court emphasized that police must clearly specify when requesting a blood test, not just refer to a generic “chemical test.”

Warrants and Medical Blood Samples

Sometimes, police secure warrants to access hospital-drawn blood samples. If a hospital collects more blood than necessary for medical care at law enforcement’s request, this could violate Fourth Amendment rights. Defense attorneys often scrutinize these scenarios to potentially exclude such evidence.

Admissibility of Blood Test Evidence

For blood test results to be admissible:

• Tests must be conducted as directed by police with the subject’s consent.
• Results should be accessible to the defendant.
• Defendants must have the option for independent testing.

Additionally, only qualified medical personnel can draw blood for legal purposes. Tests conducted at state crime labs often use gas chromatography, and compliance with specific regulations is essential for the evidence to be valid in court.

Hospital Blood Tests and Legal Implications

When hospitals perform blood tests for medical treatment, Fourth Amendment protections differ since law enforcement isn’t directly involved. Prosecutors can request these medical records under strict legal standards.

Enzymatic Testing Concerns

Hospitals commonly use enzymatic tests, which are quick but not designed for precise BAC measurement. These tests often overestimate alcohol levels and lack the forensic rigor required for criminal cases. Factors like calibration, sterilization methods, and chain of custody impact their reliability.

Medical Records as Evidence

While hospital records can be admitted under G.L. c. 233, § 79, their reliability, especially for preliminary screenings, can be contested. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that unconfirmed screening results lack the necessary reliability for legal proceedings (Commonwealth v. Wall).

Committed to Defending Your Rights

The attorney Adela Aprodu with her  expertise in challenging blood test evidence ensures that defendants receive robust legal protections and a fair trial.