FILED 


DEC. 3, 2015 


In the Office of the Clerk of Court 


W A State Court of Appeals, Division III 


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) 

) No. 33088-5-111 

Respondent, ) 

) 

v. ) 


) 


GISELA M. SEDANO, ) 


) UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

Appellant. ) 

1 

1 BROWN, J. - Gisela M. Sedano appeals her vehicular assault-under the 

influence conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying her pre-trial suppression 

motion. We disagree, and affirm. 

FACTS 

Washington State Trooper Anthony Witney was following a vehicle from a 

distance on a rural road when the vehicle suddenly swerved to avoid an oncoming 

vehicle. The driver did not swerve fast enough and the vehicles collided, causing 

injuries to both drivers. Officer Witney approached the driver of the oncoming vehicle 

and observed an unconscious Ms. Sedano in the driver seat. Trooper Witney could 

smell intoxicants in her vehicle. 
No. 33088-5-111 

State v. Sedano 

Trooper Christopher Kottong, a trooper with specialized training in impaired 

driving, met Ms. Sedano at the hospital. He also smelled intoxicants on her breath. 

Trooper Kottong contacted his off-duty sergeant to discuss logistics of getting a blood 

draw on Ms. Sedano. Hospital staff then notified the trooper they would be airlifting Ms. 

Sedano to another hospital soon and if he wanted a blood draw he had a limited window 

of availability. Trooper Kottong knew the process of getting a search warrant would 

take 40 minutes to an hour. This process included time to prepare the warrant using a 

computer in his car, contacting a judge by telephone, obtaining the judge's permission 

to sign the warrant, and then returning to the hospital for a licensed professional to 

perform the blood draw. 

Trooper Kottong decided he did not have enough time to obtain a search warrant 

and arranged to have Ms. Sedano's blood drawn before she left the hospital. Her blood 

alcohol level was .13, which is over Washington's legal limit for operating a motor 

vehicle. 

The State charged Ms. Sedano with vehicular assault - under the 

Influence. She unsuccessfully requested to suppress the results of the blood test, 

arguing the absence of exigent circumstances made the warrantless seizure of her 

blood illegal. The court found the fact Ms. Sedano was about to be transported beyond 

the trooper's ability to obtain a blood sample "formed an exigency sufficient to excuse 

the warrantless blood draw." CP at 79. A jury found Ms. Sedano guilty as charged. 

She appeals. 

2 

No. 33088-5-111 

State v. Sedano 

ANALYSIS 

The issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Ms. Sedano's suppression 

motion for the warrantless blood draw. Mr. Sedano contends a warrant was required 

under the Supreme Court's holding in Missouri v. McNeely deciding "the natural 

dissipation of alcohol in the blood" is not a per se exigency justifying a warrantless blood 

draw. Missouri v. McNeely, _U.S._, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 1563, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 

(2013). 

In reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, we "determine [] whether 

substantial evidence supports the challenged findings of fact and whether the findings 

support the conclusions of law." State v. GaNin, 166 Wn.2d 242,249,207 P.3d 1266 

(2009). Substantial evidence exists when it is enough "to persuade a fair-minded 

person of the truth of the stated premise." Id. (citation omitted). Conclusions of law 

from an order on a suppression motion are reviewed de novo. Id. 

U[T]he taking of blood samples constitutes a search and seizure within the 

meaning of U.S. Const. amend. 4 and Const. art. 1, § 7." State v. Judge, 100 Wn.2d 

706,711,675 P.2d 219 (1984). U[A] warrantless search of the person is reasonable 

only if it falls within a recognized exception," such as consent or exigent circumstances. 

McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1558, 1566. 

State v. Komoto, 40 Wn. App. 200, 697 P.2d 1025 (1985) is instructive. There, 

the State argued a warrantless entry of a hit and run suspect's residence was justified to 

conduct a blood draw. Division One of this court held, "the need for the immediate 

3 

I 

i 


] 

I 

No. 33088-5-111 

State v. Sedano 

I taking of a blood sample under the circumstances of this case was a sufficient exigency 

to justify proceeding without a warrant, or without attempting to obtain a telephonically 

authorized warrant." Id. at 214. In contrast, in State v. Hinshaw, 149 Wn. App. 747, 

756, 205 P.3d 178 (2009), this court reversed convictions for driving while under the 

influence, first degree negligent driving, and hit and run, holding a warrantless entry into 

the defendant's home to conduct a blood draw was unconstitutional. There, however, 

there was no evidence of "some real immediate and serious consequence resulting 

from a delay in obtaining a warrant." Id. at 755. 

Here, two officers smelled intoxicants on Ms. Sedano's breath, she had just 

caused a head-on collision, and she admitted to drinking prior to driving. The accident 

occurred in a rural area. She was taken by ambulance to a local hospital, but due to her 

injuries she needed to be airlifted to a larger hospital. Trooper Kottong only had a 

limited window before Ms. Sedano would be transported. Because alcohol dissipates in 

the blood stream over time, Trooper Kottong could not get an accurate reading if the 

blood was not tested before she left the area and she would become unavailable for a 

blood draw after the airlift. 

"Exigent circumstances" are an exception to the search warrant requirement. An 

exigent circumstance exists where "obtaining a warrant is not practical because the 

delay inherent in securing a warrant would ... permit the destruction of evidence." 

State v. Smith, 165 Wn.2d 511, 517, 199 P.3d 386 (2009). The McNeeley court held 

I 

I

t 4 

I 

i 

l 

1 
No. 33088-5-111 

State v. Sedano 

exigency is determined case-by-case. based on the totality of the circumstances. 133 

S. Ct. at 1559. 

While the dissipation of alcohol in the blood is not a per se exigency, it is still an 

exigency when coupled with other extenuating circumstances. Here, Trooper Kottong 

was told Ms. Sedano was being transported in the very near future to another hospital. 

The opportunity to do a blood draw would be lost. Given the totality of the 

circumstances, Ms. Sedano's imminent transport "formed an exigency sufficient to 

excuse the warrantless blood draw." CP at 79. The findings of fact support the trial 

court's conclusion. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Ms. Sedano's suppression 

motion. 

Affirmed. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

Brown, A.C.J. q 

WE CONCUR: 

~ ,

(j.

Fearin~ Lawrence-Berrey, J. 

5