No Need for Search Warrant to ID Crime Being Investigated

US v. Blakeney: Blakeney was driving in Maryland (in a federal enclave) when he crossed a median and struck an oncoming car, injuring the other driver and killing the passenger in his car. As emergency responders worked to free Blakeney from the wreckage “he became combative and resisted their efforts,” leading one responder to tell police that “Blakeney appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and PCP.” An officer, who also smelled a “strong odor of an alcoholic beverage” into Blakeney’s car, obtained a search warrant by telephone to draw Blakeney’s blood. The results showed a BAC of 0.07, high enough “to impair psychomotor functions and delay reaction times.” Three weeks later, the officer also obtained a warrant (from a different judge) to search the “black box” from Blakeney’s car. The data showed that the car was going 79 miles per hour (in a 45 mph zone) at the time of the accident. After Blakeney unsuccessfully sought to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to both warrants he was convicted at trial on multiple counts and sentenced to 40 months in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Blakeney’s motions to suppress. As to the blood-draw warrant, the court concluded that it was supported by probable cause. The court rejected Blakeney’s argument that the application described a regular traffic accident, rather than a crime, and that because the officer smelled alcohol in the car itself, rather than on Blakeney’s person, there was not a sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause. The court noted that an officer is not required to “rule out all innocent explanations for suspicious facts before seeking a warrant.” As to the black box warrant, the court also concluded it was supported by probable cause. It also rejected the argument, made about both warrants, that they were insufficient because neither identified the particular crime being investigated. The court held that “the premise of Blakeney’s argument – that a search warrant must specify the crime for which the executing officers may seek evidence – is mistaken.”