Opinion ID: 2211982
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PEOPLE v PERLOS, BROWN, MILLER, BENTLEY, SCHOMER

Text: In each of these five cases defendants were involved in one-car accidents in Jackson County between December, 1984, and November, 1985. All defendants were taken to Foote Hospital in Jackson, except for defendant Brown who was transported to Albion Community Hospital. At the hospitals, defendants were subjected to blood tests to measure the alcohol content in their blood. These tests were made for medical treatment. [2] The results of the tests showed that all defendants had an alcohol content over the 0.10 percent limit, signifying legal intoxication. Some time after the tests were performed, and pursuant to MCL 257.625a(9); MSA 9.2325(1)(9), [3] the prosecution requested the test results from the hospitals, and the hospitals complied. The prosecution did not obtain a search warrant in order to get the results, nor did defendants consent to the release of the records. On the basis of the results of the tests, defendants were arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325. In district court, defendants moved to suppress their test results, claiming that subsection 9 of the implied consent act [4] was unconstitutional. In Perlos, Miller, Brown, and Schomer, the court determined the statute to be constitutional and ruled against suppressing the evidence. In Bentley, the court found the statute to be unconstitutional and suppressed the evidence. On appeal in the circuit court, these cases were consolidated. On February 27, 1987, Judge Gordon W. Britten found the statute to be unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and suppressed the evidence. The Court of Appeals granted leave to bring an interlocutory appeal, and on July 18, 1988, affirmed the decision of the circuit court, 170 Mich App 75; 428 NW2d 685 (1988) (McDONALD, J., concurring in the result only), holding that the statute violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the parallel Michigan provision. The Court found sufficient governmental involvement in the taking of the blood to invoke Fourth Amendment protections, and consequently determined that the searches did not fall within any of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement. The Court further held that federal and state equal protection guarantees were violated by the statute and ordered the test results suppressed. However, on December 8, 1988, the Court of Appeals granted plaintiff's application for rehearing in light of Murray v United States, 487 US 533; 108 S Ct 2529; 101 L Ed 2d 472 (1988). On rehearing, the case was remanded to the district court to find a possible independent source to permit admission of the evidence. On September 1, 1989, plaintiff's request for clarification was granted, and the Court reaffirmed its position that an independent source for the evidence could be established in the lower court. On December 28, 1989, this Court granted plaintiff's application for leave to appeal to decide whether the statute is constitutional and whether the test results should be suppressed. Defendants' application to cross appeal was subsequently granted to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly remanded the case to determine if an independent source existed for the evidence. 433 Mich 917 (1989).