Police Not Required to Obtain Licensed Physician to Draw Blood When Acting Pursuant to OWI Search Wa
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the defendant’s blood test results, and did not err in sentencing her.
She was charged with OWI but convicted of the lesser offense of DWVI. The trial court sentenced her to 3 years’ probation, with 90 days to be served in jail. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred in admitting her blood-test results into evidence because the blood test was not obtained in compliance with MCL 257.625a(
6)(c). “Taken together, [Callon and Manko] establish that where, as here, the defendant’s blood is drawn pursuant to a search warrant rather than pursuant to the implied-consent statute, the blood need not be drawn by a person designated in § 625a(6)(c).” Further, the “facts and circumstances were sufficient to establish that the blood was drawn from defendant in a sterile manner by a person trained to perform the procedure and that the blood drawn from defendant was the same blood that was tested by” the scientist at the police toxicology lab. The court also rejected her argument that the trial court did not properly respond to a challenge to the accuracy of the presentence report, which indicated that she had a pending charge in district court for DWLS. “The error in the reporting of her conviction had been corrected and thus defendant expected that the pending charge would be resolved in her favor when she appeared in the district court. However, the fact that defendant had an explanation for, and defense to the pending charge, did not mean that she did not have a pending charge. Thus, there was no challenge to resolve.” Finally, it rejected her argument that the $500 fine included in the judgment of sentence should be stricken because it was not ordered by the trial court at sentencing, noting that the sentencing transcript clearly indicated that, “among other fees, the trial court ordered defendant to pay ‘a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00).’” Thus, there was no merit to her “argument that the trial court never actually imposed a $500 fine.” Affirmed.