Initially posted: 1/17/2025 | #CriminalLaw #OVWI
By: Attorney Sly Ayoubi
Indiana’s implied consent law was designed to reduce impaired driving, but it creates a troubling illusion of choice for drivers. While drivers are technically allowed to refuse a chemical test, law enforcement’s ability to secure electronic warrants in minutes effectively nullifies that choice. This rapid process not only undermines drivers’ rights but also raises constitutional concerns about fairness and due process.
As an attorney I, Sly Ayoubi, fight for drivers who have been caught in this system. By analyzing case law and procedural errors, I ensure my clients are protected from unjust penalties and improper actions by law enforcement.
____________________________________
The Illusion of Choice: How Quick Warrants Impact Drivers
One of the most significant issues with Indiana’s implied consent law is how quickly officers can override a driver’s refusal to submit to chemical testing:
1. Electronic Warrants and Forced Blood Draws
Thanks to advancements in technology, law enforcement can now obtain electronic warrants for blood draws within minutes. In Isley v. State, 202 N.E.3d 1124, the court examined the use of such warrants in DUI cases and reinforced that while warrants are legal under certain conditions, their rapid issuance can leave drivers feeling coerced into compliance.
Once a warrant is secured, police can perform a forced blood draw, even if the driver explicitly refused. This quick process erases any meaningful ability for drivers to exercise their rights under the implied consent framework.
2. Harsh Penalties for Refusal
Refusing a chemical test in Indiana triggers automatic civil penalties, including:
• A one-year license suspension for a first refusal.
• A two-year suspension for repeat refusals.
These penalties remain in effect regardless of whether the driver is ultimately found guilty of DUI or OVWI. In Hannoy v. State, 789 N.E.2d 977, the court clarified that Indiana Code Chapter 9-30-7 does not permit forcible blood draws for mere refusal, but refusal still results in significant administrative consequences.
____________________________________
Legal Standards for Nonconsensual Blood Draws
While Indiana law does not permit officers to forcibly take a blood sample without a warrant, nonconsensual blood draws are allowed under certain conditions.
1. Probable Cause and Exigent Circumstances
Under Schmerber v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court established that police may take a nonconsensual blood sample if:
• Probable cause exists to believe the driver was intoxicated.
• Exigent circumstances—such as the dissipation of alcohol or drugs in the bloodstream—justify immediate action.
Indiana courts have followed this precedent in cases like Brown v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1001, which upheld nonconsensual blood draws when officers properly documented the urgency of collecting evidence.
2. Statutory Limitations
Indiana Code Chapter 9-30-7 explicitly limits officers’ authority to conduct nonconsensual blood draws without meeting the Schmerber standard. In Wiggins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 652, the court confirmed that refusal to submit to testing results in civil penalties, but officers cannot compel a blood draw without probable cause and exigent circumstances.
____________________________________
Case Law in Practice
Recent Indiana case law illustrates how these principles apply in real-world scenarios:
• Isley v. State, 202 N.E.3d 1124
The court examined whether officers followed proper procedures in obtaining a warrant for a blood draw after the driver refused consent. The case highlights the importance of balancing public safety with drivers’ constitutional rights.
• Abney v. State, 811 N.E.2d 415
This case reaffirmed the Schmerber standard, holding that nonconsensual blood draws are permissible only when probable cause and exigent circumstances exist. The court emphasized the need for officers to act within the confines of constitutional protections.
• Hannoy v. State, 789 N.E.2d 977
The court addressed the statutory framework of Indiana’s implied consent law, clarifying that refusal alone does not authorize forcible blood draws. Officers must still obtain a valid warrant or demonstrate exigent circumstances.
• Brown v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1001
The court upheld a warrantless blood draw under exigent circumstances, noting the rapid dissipation of alcohol as a critical factor. This case underscores how courts assess the urgency of evidence collection.
____________________________________
The Shift Toward OVWI Charges
The problem is further compounded by law enforcement’s increased focus on Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (OVWI) cases involving drugs, such as marijuana.
• Marijuana Detection and Non-Impairment
Unlike alcohol, THC can remain in a person’s system for days or weeks after use. This creates a scenario where drivers can face OVWI charges even if they were not impaired at the time of driving.
• Broad Probable Cause Standards
Officers are increasingly trained to recognize signs of drug impairment, such as red eyes or erratic behavior, even if no physical evidence of drugs is present. In State v. Lucas, 934 N.E.2d 202, the court discussed the procedures for chemical tests in cases involving serious accidents, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements.
____________________________________
Why I Fight These Cases
At Sly Law, I’ve seen firsthand how the rapid issuance of warrants and the misuse of implied consent laws can harm drivers. Here’s how I help:
1. Challenging Warrant Validity
I examine whether law enforcement properly documented probable cause and exigent circumstances, as required by cases like Isley and Wiggins.
2. Protecting Against Unjust Penalties
Refusal penalties are severe, but they must be lawfully imposed. I work to ensure that my clients’ rights are respected throughout the process.
3. Fighting OVWI Charges
I challenge cases involving marijuana detection by questioning the relevance of THC levels and highlighting the lack of correlation with impairment.
____________________________________
Conclusion
Indiana’s implied consent law creates the illusion of choice, leaving drivers feeling powerless when faced with rapid warrant issuance and forced blood draws. While public safety is a priority, the system must respect drivers’ constitutional rights and ensure fair treatment.
At Sly Law LLC, I, Sly Ayoubi, fight to hold law enforcement accountable and protect my clients from unjust charges. If you’re facing DUI or OVWI penalties, don’t navigate this complex system alone—contact me for a consultation today.
Send Us a Message: