State v. Key

431 S.C. 336

848 S.E.2d 315

STATE of South Carolina, Appellant,

v.Kathryn Martin KEY, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001013

Opinion No. 27971

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard November 20, 2019

Filed May 13, 2020

Re-Filed September 2, 2020

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins III, of Greenville, for Appellant.

James H. Price III and Elizabeth Powers Price, both of Price Law Firm P.A., of Greenville; and J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Respondent.

ORDER

The petition for rehearing is granted, and we dispense with further briefing. After careful consideration of the petition, the majority opinion is unchanged. Justice Few has issued a concurring opinion. These opinions are attached.

s/ John W. Kittredge , A.C.J.

s/ Kaye G. Hearn , J.

s/ John Cannon Few , J.

s/ George C. James, Jr. , J.

s/ Thomas E. Huff , A.J.

JUSTICE JAMES :

Kathryn Martin Key was convicted in the summary court of driving under the influence (DUI). Her conviction was based upon the testing of her blood, which was drawn without a warrant while she was unconscious. The circuit court reversed and remanded, finding the summary court should have suppressed evidence of Key's blood alcohol concentration because the State did not obtain a warrant. The State appealed to the court of appeals, and the appeal was transferred to this Court.

While the State's appeal was pending in this Court, the United States Supreme Court decided Mitchell v. Wisconsin , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 204 L.Ed.2d 1040 (2019). In Mitchell , the Supreme Court held for the first time that, generally, law enforcement is permitted to draw the blood of an unconscious DUI suspect without a search warrant pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. However, the Supreme Court acknowledged the possibility of an "unusual" case presenting an exception to this new general rule. The Mitchell Court determined the defendant should be given the opportunity to establish the applicability of the exception to the general rule and remanded the case to the trial court for that purpose.

We have carefully considered the Mitchell holding and conclude we will not impose upon a defendant the burden of establishing the absence of exigent circumstances. We hold the burden of establishing the existence of exigent circumstances remains upon the State. The exigent circumstances issue in this case was not ruled upon by the summary court; therefore, we remand this case to the summary court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

At approximately 8:45 a.m. on December 10, 2015, Key was driving a motor vehicle on Muddy Ford Road in Greenville County. She drove across the center-line, crashed her vehicle into the driver's side of an oncoming vehicle, and then drove off the road and struck a tree. When South Carolina State Trooper Aaron Campbell arrived on scene at 8:57 a.m., Key was on a stretcher and was being loaded into an ambulance. Trooper Campbell approached to ask Key for her name and phone number, but one of the paramedics stopped him and said, "Man, she needs to go [to the hospital]." The ambulance departed, so Trooper Campbell was unable to question Key at the scene.

Trooper Campbell stayed at the scene for over an hour to investigate the accident. He photographed the scene, interviewed the driver of the other vehicle, and completed an accident report. Trooper Campbell recovered an almost-empty mini bottle of Jack Daniel's liquor from the glove compartment of Key's vehicle. "Wet residue" in the bottle led Trooper Campbell to believe the liquor had been "freshly consumed." Trooper Campbell completed his investigation and drove to Greenville Memorial Hospital to charge Key with DUI and open container.

Trooper Campbell located Key in the emergency room trauma bay. She was unconscious and was intubated due to the severity of her injuries. Trooper Campbell arrested the unconscious Key for DUI at 10:35 a.m. and read her implied consent rights¹ to her at 10:36 a.m. Without seeking a search warrant, Trooper Campbell asked a nurse to draw Key's blood. Her blood was drawn at 10:45 a.m. (approximately two hours after the accident), and testing revealed her blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .213%. Key then spent five days in the intensive care unit.

Key moved pre-trial to have the evidence of her BAC suppressed. She argued Trooper Campbell's failure to obtain a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 10 of the South Carolina Constitution. Key contended there were no exigent circumstances to excuse the State's failure to obtain a warrant. She also contended South Carolina's implied consent statute is unconstitutional. Key did not argue Trooper Campbell lacked probable cause to suspect she had been driving under the influence.

In response, the State argued the implied consent statute is constitutional and was followed by Trooper Campbell. The State asserted the blood was legally drawn because Key statutorily consented to the blood draw by operating a motor vehicle and by not withdrawing her implied consent. The State noted, "Judge, this is not a case where we have to look for exigent circumstances. We are not looking for an exception to the warrant requirement." The summary court denied Key's motion to suppress.

The case proceeded to a bench trial before the summary court. Trooper Campbell testified about his investigation of the accident and confirmed he did not seek a warrant before directing a nurse to draw Key's blood at the hospital. The parties stipulated there was a magistrate on duty in Greenville County at the time Key was arrested and her blood drawn. On cross-examination, Trooper Campbell acknowledged the on-duty magistrate was only three miles from the hospital on the morning of the accident. Trooper Campbell confirmed Key was unconscious when he read Key's implied consent rights to her and when the nurse drew her blood. A SLED toxicologist testified Key's BAC was .213%.

The summary court found Key guilty of DUI, imposed a fine, and sentenced her to the five days she "served" while in intensive care. Key appealed her conviction to the circuit court. In addition to the consent argument it presented to the summary court, the State argued to the circuit court that the record was replete with evidence of exigent circumstances, including the wreck itself, Trooper Campbell staying behind at the scene to interview the accident victim and conduct his investigation, and Key's unconscious state. In a written order, the circuit court reversed Key's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, ruling the blood alcohol evidence was obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure in violation of both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution. The circuit court rejected the State's position that the implied consent statute permitted a warrantless blood draw but did not address the State's exigent circumstances argument. The State moved for reconsideration and again noted its argument of exigent circumstances. The circuit court denied the State's motion without addressing the exigent circumstances issue.

The State appealed to the court of appeals, and the appeal was transferred to this Court pursuant to Rules 203(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 204(a) of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.

DISCUSSION

The State argues the circuit court erred in reversing Key's conviction and remanding for a new trial. In its brief to this Court, the State argued the circuit court erred in finding a warrant was required to draw Key's blood because (1) exigent circumstances were present and (2) Key validly consented under the implied consent statute and did not revoke her consent. During oral argument, the State abandoned its implied consent argument and proceeded solely under its exigent circumstances argument. Therefore, we will address only the latter issue.

A. Preservation

Key argues the State's exigent circumstances argument is not preserved for appellate review because the argument was not raised to or ruled upon by the summary court. We disagree.

Before the summary court, the State argued a warrant was unnecessary because Key, by driving a motor vehicle, consented to having her blood drawn under the implied consent statute. The State argued there was no need to address the issue of exigent circumstances because the consent issue was dispositive. Since the State prevailed on the issue of consent, it was unnecessary for the State to present additional arguments to the summary court as to why a warrant was not required. See I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant , 338 S.C. 406, 419, 526 S.E.2d 716, 723 (2000) ("It would be inefficient and pointless to require a respondent to return to the judge and ask for a ruling on other arguments to preserve them for appellate review. It also could violate the principle that a court usually should refrain from deciding unnecessary questions."). Nothing in the trial record indicates the State conceded to the summary court that there were no exigent circumstances.

When Key appealed to the circuit court, the State argued as an additional sustaining ground that the record "is replete with exigent circumstances," and cited Key's unconscious state as one of those circumstances. See I'On , 338 S.C. at 419-20, 526 S.E.2d at 723 ("[A] respondent—the ‘winner’ in the lower court—may raise on appeal any additional reasons the appellate court should affirm the lower court's ruling, regardless of whether those reasons have been presented to or ruled on by the lower court.... The basis for respondent's additional sustaining grounds must appear in the record on appeal[.]"). Here, the basis for the additional sustaining ground appears in the record on appeal. Because the State raised the issue of exigent circumstances to the circuit court, raised...