I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - KA- 0 0 7 5 2 - S CT LAR RY S

ETZ ER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 07/ 2009 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R O B E R T P . C H A M B E R L IN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: T. S W AYZE AL F ORD AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L B Y : J O H N R . H E N R Y , J R . DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN W
. CH AM P I ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 02/ 17/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . L a rry S e tze r a p p e als his con v ict ion s of tw o co u n ts o f m an slau g h ter b y c u lp a b le negl i gence i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 47, and one c ountof dr i vi ng under the i nf l uence ( D U I ) , re s ul t i ng i n perm anenti nj ury, i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 63 -11-30(5). F i nd i ng that the tr i al j ud ge d i d n ot err by den ying S et zer’ s m oti on t o sup press th e re s u lts o f h is b lo o d te s t, w e a ff ir m .

### 2 F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory ¶2. O n the eve ni ng of A pr i l 17, 2 00 7, L arry S et zer w as dri ving ea s ti n a For d F- 250 p ick u p tru c k o n G o o d m a n R o a d in S o u th a v e n , M iss iss ip p i. A s S e tze r a p p ro a c h e d th e tra ffic lig h t at th e in ter se c tio n o f G o o d m a n R o a d a n d A irw a y s B o u lev a rd , h is v e h icle c o lli d e d w ith
a s t at i onary B ui ck Park A venue pas s engercari n t he nor th turn l ane of eas tG oodm an R oad. T h e p ick u p p u sh e d th e c a r in to th e inte rse c tio n , c a u sin g a fo u r-v e h icle c o lli sio n o n th e w e stbound s i de of

G oodm an R oad. B ef

or e comi ng t o i t s f

i nal r es t i ng pl ace , the B ui ck s truck a D odge I ntr epi d aut om obi l e i n the s outh turn l ane of w es tG oodm an R oad, w hi ch ca us ed the D odge t o col l i de w i th an 18- w heel er(an ove r - the- r oad tr act orw i th tr ai l eri n t ow ) i n t he i ns i de l ane of

w es tG oodm an R oad. T he For d pi ckup truck overturned ont o i t s passenge r s id e a n d s lid in to th e 1 8 -w h e e le r b e fo re c o m in g to a c o m p le te s to p . ¶3. Set zerw as the onl y oc cupantof the For d pi ckup truck. A s a r es ul tof the ac ci dent , he
s uf f er ed tw o br oken t eeth, a hea d i nj ury, a nec k s pr ai n, l ace r at i ons t o hi s ri gh tel bow , and ab rasions t o h i s abdo m en, back , chest , and neck
. T he B uick w as occu pied by it s dri ve r, Gl y n e s s La n n o m, a n d p a s s e n g e r s P h i l l i p Bi e s e l i n , J a c o b La n n o m, a n d Za c h a ry La n n o m. B i es el i n w as l ef

tpart i al l y par al yzed, and J acob a nd Z acha ry L annom per i s hed as a r es ul tof in ju rie s th e y su ffe re d in th e c o lli sio n . G ly n e ss L a n n o m s u ffe re d s e rio u s in ju rie s a s a re su lt of the col l i s i on. T he dr i verof the D od ge suff

er ed mi nori nj ur i es thatw er e tr eat ed att he
s c e n e o f t h e a c c id e n t. T h e d ri v e r o f t h e 1 8 -w h e e le r s u ff e re d n o in

ju ri e s . ¶ 4 . S o u th a v e n P o lic e O ffic e r Jo rd a n Jo n e s w a s in c h a rg e o f in v e stig a tin g th e a c c id e n t. A f t eri nt ervi ew i ng w i tnes s es and vi ew i ng t he physi cal evi dence att he sc ene, O f f i cerJ ones f ound Set zeras he w as bei ng t r eat ed i n a Southaven Fi r e D epart m entambul ance . O f f i cer

### 3

Jo n e s te stifie d th a t th e a m b u la n c e w a s s til l at th e sc e n e o f th e a c c id e n t, th a t h e w a s in
un i form w hen he ap proach ed S et zer, that he adv i sed S et zer of his Mir anda rig h ts in accordance w i th 

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436, 467-68, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) , thathe as ked Setzerf orhi s acc ountof

the ac ci dent , and thatSet zerdi d not appea rt o be i nj ur ed. O f f i cerJ ones sai d thatSet zerappea r ed angry, aggr es s i ve, and uncooper at i ve w i th the medi cal per s onnel w ho w er e att empt i ng t o tr eathi m i n the ambul ance . A ddi t i onal l y, O f f i cerJ ones t es t i f

i ed thatSet zerha d bl oods hote yes and s l ur r ed
s peec h, w hi ch O f

f i cerJ ones deemed t o be i ndi cat or s of i nt ox i cat i on. O f

f i cerJ ones t hen admi ni s t er ed a port abl e br eath t es tt o Set zer , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a r eadi ng of 000, rul i ng out th e p re se n c e o f a lco h o l. S e tze r a ttribu ted h is b lo o d sh o t ey e s a n d slu rre d sp e e c h to h is in ju ri e s . ¶5. Set zerw as transport ed fr om the acc i den tscene t o B apti stM em ori al H ospit al
- D eSot o, a d ista n c e o f ap p ro x im a tely o n e m ile. O ffic e r Jo n e s fo llo w e d th e a m b u lan c e to th e h o sp ital, loca ted S etze r i n a p ri v ate room of the em erge n cy d ep artm en t, reintrod u ce d h im self t o S etze r, and adv i sed S et zer of

his Mir anda ri gh t s fora se cond t i m e. O f f i cerJ ones t es t i f

i ed that S et zer verbal l y ackn ow l edg ed thathe u nd ers t oo d h i s Mir anda ri ght s . Set zert es t i f i ed att he tr ial ; ho w ev er, S etze r g av e n o testi m o n y w ith reg ard to w h ethe r he rec all ed O ffi ce r Jon es’s adv i si ng him of hi s Mir anda ri gh t s or w hetherS et zer had ackn ow l edg ed an d w ai ved t ho se ri g h ts . ¶6. W hi l e atthe hos pi t al , a nu rs e d rew a blood sam pl e f r om Set zerf

or i nves t i gat i ve purpos es . A tthe t i m e of the bl ood col l ect i on, Set zerw as notunderarr es t . A ddi t i onal l y, t he
r e c o r d i s c l e a rt h a tS e t z e rn e v e rg a v e wr i t t e n c o n s e n tf o rb l o o d t o b e d r a wn f o rc r i me

### Alpraz olam i s a ls o known by thebrand nam es Niravam and Xanax. U.S. Nationa l 1 

### Lib rary o f Med icine, ht

t p: / / www. ncbi
. nlm . nih. go v/

pu bme dh e alt

h/PMH0000807 (l as t vi site d Feb . 15 , 20 11 ). 4 l abor at ory a nal ys i s . H ow ever , O f f i cerJ ones w as a damantthatSet zertw i ce gave O f f i cer J ones verbal cons entf

orthe bl ood dr aw . T er esa W i ndham, the nur s e w ho extr act ed the bl ood f r om Set zer , t es t i f

i ed thats he di d notr eca l l w hetherSet zerhad gi ven hi s cons entf or the bl ood dr aw , butadded thats he w oul d nothave dr aw n Set zer ’ s bl ood atthe r eques tof t he O ff ic e r J o n e s w ith o u t c o n s e n t f ro m S e tz e r. ¶7 . O f

f i cerJ ones t ook the b l oo d s a mpl e t o O f f i c e rJ e f f Log a n, w ho s t i l l w as at t he
acc i dents cene . T he bl ood s ampl e w as s entt o N M S L abs t o be t es t ed. T he r eportgener at ed by N M S L abs s ai d t hatS et zer ’ s bl ood had t es t ed posi t i ve f oral pr azol am i n the amountof 1 73 ng/ m L . T he N M S L abs re por tal s o sai d t hatt he ther apeut i c r ange f oral pr azol am i s 10- 50
n g /m L . ¶ 8 . O n N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 , S e tze r w a s in d icte d fo r tw o c o u n ts o f D U I re su lti n g in d e a th and one c ountof

D U I r es ul t i ng i n pe r m anenti nj ury, i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 6 3 -1 1 -3 0 (5 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶9. O n O ct ober 21, 2008, Set zer f i l ed a m ot i on t o s uppr es s al l t est i m ony and evi dence
r egar di ng the s ampl e of bl ood dr aw n f

r om hi m , al l egi ng thathe had n ot cons ent ed t o t he bl ood dr aw , thathe had notbe en undera rr es ta tthe t i m e of the bl ood dr aw , thatthe St at e had notsec ur ed a se ar ch w arr antfort he bl ood dra w , and t hatno pr obabl e caus e and no e xi gent
c ir c u m s ta n c e s h a d n e g a te d th e s e a rc h -w a rr a n t r e q u ir e m e n t.T he cha r ges i n t he i ndi ctm entw er e com m i t t ed t o the i nact i ve f i l es on February 17, 2 2 0 0 9 . 

### Th e stipulatio n pro vid ed that the State wo uldoffer testimonyfrom ey ewitn esses to

3 

### theac ci dent

as wel l a s t es timony f

rom Nurs e Windham , a

toxi col ogis t f

rom NMS La bs, and 5 ¶ 1 0 . On F e b ru a r y 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 , th e S t a t e o f f e r e d t o r e d u c e th e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t S e t z e r . On February 13, 2009, the St at e pr ocee ded aga i ns tSet zerupon a bi l l of i nf or m at i on, char gi ng Set zerw i th tw o count s of cul pabl e negl i gence m ans l aught erunderM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 47, and one c ountof D U I as s aul tunde rM i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 63- 11- 30( 5)
. O n that dat e, Set zerf

i l ed hi s “w ai ver of

r i ghtt o gr and j ury pr ocedur e and pe t i t i on t o pr ocee d on in fo rm a tio n .” 2 ¶11. Fol l ow i ng a pr etr i al hear i ng, the tr i al j udge deni ed Set zer ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . T he
courthel d that , bas ed on the evi dence bef or e i t , O f f i cerJ ones “had pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatSetzerh ad com m i t t ed the cr i m e of D U I caus i ng death and/ ori nj ury and thatexi gent
c irc u m sta n c e s e x iste d w h ich a u th o riz e d h is a ttem p t to o b tain a b lo o d s a m p le w ith o u t a
w arr ant . ” A ddi t i onal l y, the tr i al c our the l d that , ba s ed on the t es t i m ony of O f f i cerJ ones and N ur s e W i ndham, “ Set zerknow i ngl y a nd vol unt ar i l y cons ent ed t o the dr aw i ng of the bl ood
s ampl e. ” ¶12. T he St at e and Set zeral s o ent er ed i nt o a st i pul at i on of f act s . I n thats t i pul at i on, Set zer agr eed t o w ai ve the exer ci s e of hi s r i ghtt o a tr i al by j ury and hi s r i ghtt o conf r ontw i tnes s es agai ns thi m ; how ever , Set zerr es erved hi s r i ghtt o a ppeal the tr i al c our t ’ s de ni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence of the bl ood dr aw . T he st i pu l at i on s um m ar i zed the evi dence thatt he S tat e w o u ld o ffer at tri al, an d ag ree d that the e v iden ce w o u ld b e su ffi cien t t o m ee t th e S tat e’s bur den of

pr oof
. I n addi t i on t o the t es t i m ony of the eyew i tnes s es t o the ac ci dentand O f f i cer 3

### Officer Jo nes.

Setze r wa ive d his ri ght t o tria l by j ury. 4 

### 6 Jo n es, th e sti p u lat ion o f facts p rov ided that the S tat e w o u ld o ffer th e testi m o n y o f R o b ert C amp, a l i m ous i ne dr i ver , w ho had obs erved Set zerdr i vi ng i n an er r at i c m annerpri ort o the
w r eck. H ow ever , Set zerdi d notst i pul at e thatthe bl ood dr aw n and l at ert es t ed w as obt ai ned
w ith h is c o n s e n t o r t a k e n b a s e d o n p ro b a b le c a u s e . ¶13. A t the concl us i on of a bench tr i al on February 13, 2009, the tr i al j udge f ound Set zer 4 g u i l ty o f two c o u n t s o f

ma n s l a u g h t e rb y c u l p a b l e n e g l i g e n c e a n d g u i l ty o f o n e c o u n to f

DUI
caus i ng death orperm anentbodi l y i nj ury. Set zerw as s ent ence d t o s erve f i f t een ye ar s i n the
cus t ody of

the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons on countone; f i f t een ye ar s , s us pended,
on cou nt tw o, t o run conc urr entl y w i th the sent ence for cou nt on e; and ten years’ po st -r el ease su p e rv isio n o n c o u n t th re e . A d d iti o n a lly , S e tze r w a s o rd e re d to p a y a $ 1 ,0 0 0 fin e , $ 1 0 0 to the C r i m e V i ct i m s ’ C om pens at i on f und, courtcos t s , and $1 7, 51 2. 20 t o the O f f i ce of t he A t t orney G ener al
. A ggr i eved, Set zerappea l ed. I s s ue ¶14. Set zeras ks t hi s C our tt o det erm i ne w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n denyi ng hi s pr etr i al
m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence of the bl ood t es t . Set zerm ai nt ai ns t hathe di d notconse ntt o t he col l ect i on of

a bl ood s ampl e, thatthe St at e l acke d pr obabl e ca us e t o col l ectthe bl ood s ampl e, and no exi gentci r cumst ance s w er e pr es entw hi ch w oul d have ne gat ed t he r equi r ementf or a se a rc h w a rra n t. St andard of R evi ew

### 7

¶ 1 5 . “ A c irc u it c o u rt ju d g e s ittin g w ith o u t a ju ry is a c c o rd e d th e sa m e d e fe re n c e w ith reg ard to h is f

ind ing s as a ch an ce ll o r, an d h is f ind ing s are safe o n ap p ea l w h ere they are s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al , cr edi bl e, and r easona bl e evi dence
. ” Tr init y Mis s i on H

e al t h & R ehab of H

ol l y Springs, L L C

v. L aw r ence , 19 So. 3d 647, 649 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng P ar I ndus. , I nc. v. T ar get ContainerCo. , 708 So. 2d 44, 47 ( M i s s . 1 99 8))
. “[ W ] e w i l l not
o v erturn fi n d ing s o f fa c t w h e re the y are su p p o rt ed b y su b stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd unl es s ther e w as a bus e of di s cr et i on by the tr i al j udge orthe f i ndi ngs w er e mani f

es t l y w r ong orcl ear l y err oneous . ” Mor le y v. Ja c ks on Rede v e lop m e nt Auth. , 87 4 S o. 2 d 97 3, 97 5 (M i ss. 20 04 ). M oreove r, “[ t ] his C ou rtcan reverse a tri al cou rt ’s den i al o f a m o ti on t o sup press o n ly : if the in c o rre c t leg a l p rin c ip le w a s a p p lied ; if the re w a s n o su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to
su p p o rta v o lun tary, kn o w ing , an d intell igen t w aive r of Mir anda r i ght s ; and i f the deni al w as
a r es ul tof

m ani f es terr or . ” S c o tt v. S ta te , 8 S o . 3 d 8 5 5 , 8 6 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). D i s cus s i on ¶16 . “T he ri g h t of the p eo p le to be secu re i n thei r per sons, ho uses, pap ers , and eff ect s, a g a i n s tu n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s , s h a l l n o tb e v i o l a t e d
. ” U. S
. C o n s t . a me n d
. I V.

“ T h e p e o p le s h a ll b e se c u re in th e ir p e rso n s, h o u s e s , an d p o ss e ss io n s, fro m u n re a so n a b le
s ei zur e ors ear ch. ” M i s s . C ons t . art . 3 § 23. “A s ear ch made w i thoutw arr antand not in c id e n t to a law fu l ar re st is n o t il leg a l per se , buti f the f rui t s of the s ear ch ar e t o w i ths t and the exc l us i onary rul e, the s ear ch musthave be en pr edi cat ed on proba bl e ca us e. ” McD uf f v. S ta te , 763 S o. 2d 850, 854 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng H a iles v. S ta te , 26 8 S o. 2d 34 5, 34 6 (M i ss. 1 9 7 2 )). M o re o v e r, “[t]h e d e g re e o f in tru sio n n e c e ss a ry in th e tak in g o f a b lo o d sa m p le is
s uf f i ci entt o r equi r e the pr es ence of pr obabl e cause. T he Fourth A m endmentpr ohi bi t i on

### 8

agai ns tunr eas onabl e sear ch and se i zur e appl i es w hen an i ntrus i on i nt o the body – s uch as a bl ood t es t– i s undert aken w i thouta w arr ant , abs entan emer gency s i tuat i on. ” Co le v . S ta te , 493 So. 2d 1333, 1336 ( M i s s . 1986) ( quot i ng S c h m e rb e r v. Ca l. , 384 U . S. 757, 770- 71, 86 S. C t . 1826, 1835- 36, 16 L . E d. 2d 908, 919- 20 ( 1966) )
. H ow ever , thi s C our thas uphel d the coll ect i on of a bl oo d sam ple, a bsent the suspe ct ’s arr estor consen t , w here probab l e cause e x is te d fo r t h e s e a rc h
. G ib so n v. S ta te , 5 0 3 S o . 2 d 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ). ¶ 1 7 . S e tze r c o n ten d s th a t, b a se d o n th e to tality o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, it is c lea r th a t h e d id
n o t con sen t t o the c o ll ec ti o n o f his b loo d for the p u rpo se its b e in g u sed in the S tat e’s prosecuti on of hi m . S et zer m ade a si m i l ar ar gu m ent i n sup po rtof hi s m oti on t o sup press . I n t ha tmot i on , Se t z e ra ve r r e d tha t“ [ a ] tthe t i me the St a t e s e i z e d Def e nd a nt ’ s bl ood, D ef endantw as notunde ra r r es t , he di d notc ons entt o hi s bl ood bei ng t aken, no w arr anthad been secured by the S t at e, and the S t at e’s dis cov ery provides no ev i den ce of probab l e cause thatD ef endantw as undert he i nf l uence or thatan exi gentci r cumst ance exi s t ed thatnegat ed th e re q u ire m e n t fo r a w a rra n t.” T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied S e tze r’s m o tio n to su p p re ss , an d in its
w ritten o rd e r fo u n d th a t:
a. O f f i cerJ ones pr oper l y r es ponded t o a n a ut om obi l e acc i denti nvol vi ng f our ( 4) car s w i thi n hi s j ur i s di ct i on; b. T he of

f i cerdet erm i ned thata s er i ous acc i denthad occ urr ed and, upon v iew in g th e sc e n e c lo se r, n o ted tw o (2 ) c h ild re n w h o , b a se d u p o n h is exper i ence , appea r ed t o be dec eas ed. H e al s o not ed anotherpas s engerw ho a p p e a re d to b e se rio u sly in ju re d ;

. . . d
. F rom h is i n v esti g ati o n , O ffi ce r Jon es d eterm ined that the d efe n d an t’ s vehi cl e had r ear - ended the vi ct i m ’ s vehi cl e and pus hed i tthr ough t he i nt er s ect i on;

. . .

### 9

f
. O f f i cerJones obs erved atthi s t i m e thatthe def endantappea r ed angry, aggr es s i ve and unc ooper at i ve. O f f i cerJ ones s t at ed thathe obs erved bl oods hot eyes and s l urr ed s peec h w hi ch he de emed t o be i ndi cat or s of i nt oxi cat i on; g. O f f i cerJ ones of

f er ed the def

endanta port able br eath t es tw hi ch the d e fe n d a n t to o k a n d p a ss e d , ru lin g o u t th e p re se n c e o f a lco h o l; h. T es t i m ony w as pre s ent ed as t o t he di f f i cul ty i n t i m e of

obt ai ni ng a w arr ant and the f actthatbl ood i nt oxi cat i on evi dence w oul d di s s i pat e overt i m e; i
. O f f i cerJ ones w entt o de f

endantSet zer ’ s r oom i n the Em er gency Room at B apt i s t - D es ot o hos pi t al t o r eques tconsentt o dr aw Set zer ’ s bl ood. O f f i cer J on es once aga i n r ead M r . Set zerhi s M i r anda r i ght s and Set zers ai d he u n d e rsto o d th e s e r ig h ts. D e fe n d a n t S e tze r d id c o n se n t to th e d ra w in g o f h is b lo o d
. j
. O f f i cerJ ones obt ai ned the s ervi ces of E. R . nurs e, T er es a W i ndham, t o dr aw th e b lo o d . O ffic e r Jo n e s sta ted h e re c e iv e d c o n se n t ag a in fro m M r. S e tze r in the pr es ence of

nur s e W i nd ham
. N ur s e W i ndham t es t i f i ed thats he di d not r emem berthe of

f i ceras ki ng f

orcons enti n herpr es ence butdi d st at e t hats he w o u ld n o t h a v e d ra w n th e b lo o d if th e d e fe n d a n t h a d re fu s e d
. ¶1 8 . T h e tri al co u rt , relying o n the ra ti o n ale o f L o n gstr e e t v. S ta te , 59 2 S o. 2d 16 (M i ss. 1991) , hel d that , bas ed on thes e f act s , O f f i cerJ ones “had pr ob able c aus e t o bel i eve that Set zerhad com m i t t ed the cr i m e of D U I caus i ng death and/ ori nj ury and thatexi gent
c irc u m sta n c e s e x iste d w h ich a u th o riz e d h is a tte m p t to o b tain a b lo o d sa m p le w ith o u t a
w a rra n t.” A d d iti o n a lly , the trial c o u rt f o u n d th a t S e tze r “ k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n tar ily
cons ent ed t o t he dr aw i ng of the bl ood s ampl e. ” ¶19. R egar di ng Set zer ’ s al l egat i on that he had not cons ent ed t o t he blood dr aw , the tr i al jud g e w as c h all en g ed w ith d eterm ining the c red ibil ity an d v era city o f th e w itn esse s b efo re h im
. See Mo h r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 426, 431 ( M i s s . 1991)
. O f f i cerJ ones t es t i f

i ed thatSet zer tw i ce ga ve hi m verbal cons entf orthe bl ood dr aw . W i ndham, the nur s e w ho ext ract ed t he bl ood f r om Set zer , t es t i f

i ed thats he di d notr eca l l w hetherSet zergave c ons entf orthe bl ood dr aw , butadded thats he w oul d nothave dr aw n Set zer ’ s bl ood atthe r eques tof O f f i cerJ ones wi th o u tc o n s e n tf

r o m S e t z e r . Al th o u g h Se t z e ra r g u e s th a th e n e v e rs i g n e d a c o n s e n tf o r m,

### 10

thi s C our thas neverhel d thatw r i t t en cons enti s r equi r ed f ora bl ood dr aw . T her ef or e, bas ed on the t es t i m ony bef

or e the tr i al court , w e ca nnotsay thatthe tr i al j udge err ed i n f i ndi ng t hat S e tz e r h a d c o n s e n te d to th e d ra w in g o f a s a m p le o f h is b lo o d
. ¶20. Fur ther , i n L ongstr eet , 592 So. 2d at18, t hi s C our thel d that“bl ood s ear ches w hi ch
a re b a se d u p o n p ro b a b le c a u se a re n o t il leg a l.” In th is c a s e , S e tze r’s v e h icle c o lli d e d w ith
a s t at i onary vehi cl e as he appr oache d a tr af f i c s i gnal
. O f

f i cerJ ones ha d cons i der abl e r eas on t o bel i eve thatSet zerw as i nt oxi cat ed. Speci f i cal l y, O f

f i cerJ ones obs erved Set zer ’ s bei ng uncooper at i ve w i th m edi cal t echni ci ans w ho w er e att empt i ng t o tr eathi m a tthe s cene of t he
a c c id e n t, a n d h e tes tified tha t S e tze r h a d slu rre d sp e e c h a n d b lo o d sh o t ey e s. C o n sis ten t w ith the dec i s i on i n L ongstr eet , the tr i al courtdi d noterri n hol di ng thatO f f i cerJ ones had pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatSet zerhad comm i t t ed the cr i m e of D U I caus i ng death or in ju ry . See al

s o W ilk e rs o n v. S ta te , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ) (“ W h e re th e sta te i s j us t i f i ed i n re qui r i ng a bl ood t es tt o det erm i ne t he al cohol i c cont enti n a sus pect ’ s bl ood, and the t es thas been pe r f or m ed, the st at e i s ent i t l ed t o t he bene f i tof the t es tr es ul t s . ” ( ci t i ng L ongstr eet , 5 9 2 S o . 2 d a t 2 1 )); G re e n v. S ta te , 710 So. 2d 862, 865 ( M i s s . 1998) ( “[ A ] s l ong as ther e i s p robable cause t o bel i eve thatthe per s on i s i m pai r ed by s om e s ubs t ance . . . t he
resu lt s o f the b loo d a lcoh o l co n ce n tr ati o n test s are ad m issi b le. ”); W h itle y v. S ta te , 511 So. 2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ) (b lo o d -a lco h o l te st w a s a d m iss ib le w h e re o ffic e r h a d p ro b a b le
c a u se to a rre st W h itl e y a n d c h a rg e h im w ith m a n sla u g h ter ); Co le v . S ta te , 493 So. 2d 1333, 1335 ( M i s s . 1986) ( “A s ear ch made w i thoutw arr antand noti nci dentt o a l aw f ul arr es ti s not i l l egal pers e, buti f

the f rui t s of the s ear ch ar e t o w i ths t and the exc l us i onary rul e, the s ear ch
m u st ha v e b ee n p re d icated o n p rob ab le ca u se.”); A sh ley v. S ta te , 423 So. 2d 1311, 1313

### 11

(M i ss. 19 82 ) ( “A tthatti m e ther e ex i st ed probab l e cau se forarr estan d al so proba ble cause to se a rc h ap p e llan t b y re q u irin g h im to su b m it t o th e w ith d ra w a l o f b lo o d fro m h is b o d y to b e te s te d .” ). C oncl usi on ¶2 1 . T h e tri al co u rtd id n o t ab u se it s d iscreti o n in find ing that O ffi ce r Jon es’s a cti o n s w ere supp ort ed b y probab l e cause and i n fi nd i ng that S et zer had consented t o the sear ch, as tho se fi n d in g s a re s u p p o rt e d b y s u b s ta n tia l, c re d ib le , a n d re a s o n a b le e v id e n c e . Tr init y Mis s i ons , 1 9 S o . 3 d a t 6 4 9 . M o re o v e r, th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ap p ly a n in c o rre c t leg a l sta n d a rd to th is
c a s e . S c o tt , 8 So. 3d at861. T hus , the convi ct i ons and s ent ence s ar e af f i r m ed. ¶ 2 2 . CO UNT I : CONVI CT I ON OF CULPABLE NEGLI GENC E M ANSLAUGH TER AN D S E NT E NC E OF F I F T E E N ( 1 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M ISS ISS IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . C O U N T II: CONVI CT I ON OF CU L P AB L E NE GL I GE NC E M AN S L AU GHT E R A ND S E N T E N C E O F F IF T E E N (15) Y E A R S S U S P E N D E D , A F F IR M E D . C O U N T III : CONVI CT I ON OF DUI CAUS I NG P ER M ANENT B ODI LY I NJ URY AN D SEN TE N C E O F T EN ( 10 ) Y E A R S TO BE SER V ED A S PO ST R EL EA SE SU PE R V I SI O N , W I TH C O N D I TIO N S, A FFIRM ED . SEN T E N C E S I N C O U N TS I AND I I S HALL RUN CONC URRE NT LY . W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AND GRAV E S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE J J . , CONCUR.