Defendant Nasir K. Lynn was arrested on February 10, 2023 and charged with Driving While Ability Impaired by Drug in violation of VTL §1192(4), Moving from a Lane Unsafely in violation of VTL §1128(A), and Driving on the Shoulder of a Controlled Access Highway in violation of VTL §1131. He was arraigned on May 8, 2023, at which time he entered pleas of not guilty to all charges.

Suppression hearings concerning the blood draw and statements made to law enforcement were held on February 28, 2024. Testimony was received from Monroe County Sheriff's Deputy Amanda Pratt. The testimony was supplemented by memoranda and written closing statements submitted by the parties.

This decision and order constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On February 9, 2023, at approximately, 23:10 P.M., Defendant's vehicle and another vehicle collided in the vicinity of 4455 W. Henrietta Road. Monroe County Sheriff's Deputy Amanda Pratt, who arrived on scene about two minutes later, observed Defendant's vehicle blocking both lanes and found him in the driver's seat unconscious but breathing. The second vehicle was on the front lawn. The driver of that vehicle was out of the vehicle and not seriously injured. Deputy Pratt attempted to wake the Defendant by a sternum rub. He briefly opened his eyes which were extremely glassy. He stared straight ahead and was uncommunicative. This led Deputy Pratt to suspect the Defendant was under the influence of drugs. EMS staff placed Defendant on a gurney, loaded him into an ambulance and transported him to the hospital. While Defendant was inside the ambulance, Deputy Pratt looked through Defendant's vehicle and observed rolling papers. She then followed the ambulance to the hospital.

At the hospital, Defendant remained unresponsive, groggy and experienced eye tremors. Nursing staff lifted Defendant's arm several times and dropped it to see if it would hit his face, but each time it dropped slowly and failed to hit him, leading them to believe his response was [*2]behavioral, rather than due to a medical condition. They then ordered a CT scan. Deputy Pratt asked staff to draw blood from Defendant via implied consent. Simultaneously, nurses were planning to draw his blood for medical diagnostic purposes. When nurses attempted to draw blood, Defendant opened his eyes and asked what they were doing. Deputy Pratt then began questioning Defendant about the accident and whether or not he had consumed alcohol or used drugs. She did not read him his Miranda rights. She was the only officer present, her gun was not drawn, and the Defendant was not handcuffed. Although he couldn't recall the accident, he admitted that he had used marijuana but couldn't remember when. His speech was slow and mumbled. His eyes were glassy and he continued to stare straight ahead.

At approximately 12:05 A.M. on February 10, 2023, Deputy Pratt concluded that Defendant was under the influence of a drug and placed him under arrest. She then read the DMV refusal warnings to the Defendant three times and he refused consent to a blood draw each time at approximately, 12:12 A.M., 12:26 A.M., and 12:32 A.M. However, hospital staff already had drawn blood for medical diagnostic purposes, which was placed on hold pending a warrant at Deputy Pratt's request.

On February 16, 2023, Monroe County Sheriff's Investigator Larocque applied to Monroe County Court for a warrant of search and seizure to obtain Defendant's blood from the hospital for chemical analysis. Upon his sworn affidavit, a warrant and order were issued by County Court Judge Randall. Thereafter, Inv. Larocque executed the warrant and recovered five vials of Defendant's blood. All vials of Defendant's blood had been obtained prior to Defendant's refusal to consent to blood draws. Blood lab results of Defendant's blood conducted by the Monroe County Medical Examiner's Office subsequently confirmed the presence of marijuana at the time of arrest.

SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENTS

To avoid suppression at trial of Defendant's statement to Deputy Pratt that he had used marijuana, the People had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant's statement was made voluntarily. The People have met their burden.

Defendant admitted to having used marijuana following persistent but non-coercive questioning from Deputy Pratt. She was the only officer present, her gun was not drawn, and Defendant was not handcuffed. Although he was not apprised of his Miranda rights, Deputy Pratt's questions were investigative in nature. The circumstances were not such that Defendant could reasonably conclude he was being detained by law enforcement, but rather, for medical examination. He wasn't forced to respond to the officer's questions, threatened, hoodwinked into incriminating himself, or told that he couldn't leave prior to being placed under arrest. His admission preceded his arrest and there's no indication on the record that questioning continued following his arrest.

SUPPRESSION OF THE BLOOD DRAW RESULTS

The Defendant argues that the results of the blood analysis should be suppressed as an unconstitutional search and seizure because the blood draw failed to comport with the requirements of VTL §1194. Defendant avers that Deputy Pratt had no probable cause for arrest; no basis for obtaining the blood draw via implied consent because Defendant was not placed under arrest prior to seeking the blood draw as required by VTL §1194(2)(a)(1) and Defendant emphatically refused consent pursuant to VTL §1194(2)(b(1); and a court order to compel the blood draw was not obtained upon Defendant's refusal as required by VTL §1194(3). Defendant further contends that the Deputy lacked reasonable cause to obtain a court order because the [*3]accident had not caused serious injury or death to another as required by VTL §1194(3)(b)(1).

The People respond that Defendant's argument is inapt because the blood draw was obtained pursuant to a CPL §690.10 search warrant, rather than via the VTL §1194 procedures. Defendant dismisses this contention asserting that the procedures outlined in VTL §1194 are the exclusive means for obtaining a blood draw in a VTL §1192 case and cite People v. Casadei, 106 AD2d 885, 483 NYS2d 875 (1984), aff'd 66 NY2d 846, 489 NE2d 244, 498 NYS 357 (1985) and People v. Moselle, 57 NY2d 97, 439 NE2d 1235, 454 NYS2d 292 (1982) in support of that contention.

Consistent with the conclusion of Courts such as People v. Meade, 117 NYS3d 805, 64 Misc 3d 1234(A) (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2019), Defendant may be correct that Moselle and Casadei affirm that blood draws directed by a police officer must follow the VTL §1194 procedures. However, these Courts have also found that blood drawn for medical purposes absent police direction, is obtainable by search warrant under C.P.L. §690.10, Meade, supra; People v. Sanchez, 38 NYS3d 832, 51 Misc 3d 1218[A] (Crim. Ct. Bronx Cty. 2016); People v. Elysee, 49 AD3d 33, 41, 847 NYS2d 654 (2nd Dept. 2007), aff'd 12 NY3d 100, 904 NE2d 813, 876 NYS2d 677 (2009); People v. Godulias, 959 NYS2d 91, 36 Misc 3d 1230[A] (Nassau Co. Dist. Ct. 2012); People v. Dell, 175 AD3d 1037, 107 NYS3d 586 (4th Dept. 2019); People v. Jorgensen, 26 Misc 3d 1232[A], 907 NYS2d 439 (Suffolk Co. Sup. Ct. 2010).

Thus, the dispositive question in this case is, was Deputy Pratt's initial direction to draw blood by implied consent sufficient to invoke the VTL §1194 procedures? The Court concludes that it was not. Though proximate in time to her demand, the blood was drawn not in compliance with her demand, but rather for diagnostic purposes. This is evident from her testimony and the steps she took after medical staff had drawn blood to obtain the Defendant's consent, preserve the samples and obtain a search warrant, which was ultimately issued by County Court upon a finding of probable cause.

"If at the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing court determines that the sample of Defendant's blood was drawn solely at the direction of the hospital for purposes of medical treatment, then Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of he execution of the search warrant should be denied." Sanchez, supra. The Court agrees with the Sanchez court and has reached such a determination.

Defendant's motions to suppress the results of the blood draw and Defendant's statements to law enforcement are denied.