State of Maine v. Blodgett

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL COURT
KENNEBEC, ss CRIMINAL ACTION
DOCKET NO. CR-21-1970

STATE OF MAINE

V. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
TOBY BLODGETT,

Defendant

Hearing on defendant's motion to suppress was held on July 14, 2022.

The State was represented by Assistant District Attorney Katherine Davis from

the Penobscot County District Attorney's office. Defendant, Toby Blodgett, was

not present, but was represented by Walter F. McKee, Esquire. The court

received testimony from Jacob Pierce, a sergeant with the Skowhegan Police

Department, and Taylor Rolfe, a registered nurse at Redington-Fairview

General Hospital in Skowhegan.

The defendant argues that no warrant was obtained prior to defendant's

blood draw at the hospital on July 24, 2021, and no exceptions to the warrant

requirement apply. He asks the court to suppress the blood samples and

corresponding test results. Based on the evidence received, the court makes

the following findings of facts and conclusions of law.

On July 24, 2021, Toby Blodgett, an off-duty Somerset County Sheriff's

deputy, was involved in a serious motor vehicle crash. He was taken to

Redington-Fairview General Hospital in Skowhegan due to his significant

mJuries. Defendant arrived at Redington-Fairview General Hospital at
approximately 7: 17 pm. Defendant was reporting a high level of pain and

hospital staff administered medication to address his pain, including fentanyl

on at least two occasions in the first hour that he was at the hospital (and prior

to the blood draw). Due to his injuries, defendant was transferred to Maine

Medical Center in Portland later that night.

Shortly after 7:00 pm, Sergeant Jacob Pierce, a patrol supervisor with

the Skowhegan Police Department, was called to Redington-Fairview Hospital

to assist Officer Cummings. Officer Cummings informed Sgt. Pierce that

defendant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and was seriously

injured. The passenger in defendant's vehicle was also injured and both

individuals had been transported to the hospital for treatment. Family

members and friends of both patients were beginning to gather at the hospital.

Arriving at the hospital, Sgt. Pierce observed numerous law enforcement

officers from various agencies, as well as defendant's wife Shanna and his

brother Ronnie, both of whom were law enforcement officers as well. Sgt.

Pierce was approached by Trooper Lacoste from the Maine State Police seeking

a blood kit as the deputy conducting the investigation into the crash did not

have one. Sgt. Pierce retrieved a law enforcement issue blood kit from his

vehicle. When he returned, Trooper Lacoste was not present and Sgt. Pierce

was requested to collect a blood sample from defendant.

Sgt. Pierce waited for permission from medical staff to enter the

emergency room where defendant was. Once in the room, Sgt. Pierce observed

defendant in the hospital bed covered in blood and bandages (including on his

2
hands and facial area) due to his significant injuries. Defendant's wife and

brother were present in the room, as well as medical staff. Sgt. Pierce asked

defendant's brother to step out of the room so that he could speak with

defendant. His wife and several medical professionals remained in the room

while Sgt. Pierce spoke with defendant.

Sgt. Pierce explained to defendant that, due to the severity of the crash,

he was there to complete a blood test kit at the request of Maine State Police,

through the Kennebec County Sheriff's Office. After this statement, defendant

nodded his head up and down. Sgt. Pierce took defendant's head movement to

indicate he understood that Sgt. Pierce needed to do the blood kit. Sgt. Pierce

did not recall whether defendant had verbally addressed him or spoken with

any of his family members or medical staff while the officer was present in the

room. At hearing, Sgt. Pierce could not recall whether he affirmatively asked

defendant if he consented to the blood draw. Sgt. Pierce only recalled that he

informed defendant that the blood kit was being requested and asked if

defendant understood that fact. Although the blood kit does contain a

preprinted consent form, the form was not read to defendant, nor did

defendant sign the form. Defendant's wife offered to sign the consent form for

defendant which she did. Sgt. Pierce did not recall defendant asking for her to

sign, but only recalled defendant's wife indicating that she would sign the form.

At hearing, when asked on cross examination " ... you did not ask him if

he consented to a blood kit, you explained to him that a blood draw was being

requested and you asked if he understood, correct?" Sgt. Pierce answered,

3
"Correct, sir." When then asked specifically if he asked defendant if he

consented to the blood draw, Sgt. Pierce answered, "I don't recall. ... Correct."

Finally, Sgt. Pierce testified that he believed that he just requested or told

defendant he needed to get a blood draw and he did not recall if Blodgett

consented to the blood draw. The officer was not able to have his body camera

on during his interaction with defendant due to hospital policy so there was no

recording of the interactions prior to the blood draw.

When speaking with defendant about the blood draw, Sgt. Pierce did not

have any information regarding the extent of defendant's injuries, any medical

procedures or conditions that might have occurred prior to his arrival, or of

what, if any, medication had been administered. Sgt. Pierce did not smell any

odor of alcohol during his interactions with defendant. During the hearing, the

officer described the room as very small, chaotic, and very emotional.

Registered nurse Taylor Rolfe was assigned to defendant's case upon his

arrival at Redington-Fairview General Hospital on July 24, 2021. Although

Nurse Rolfe conducted the blood draw, she did so only after Sgt. Pierce spoke

with defendant. She did not obtain consent from defendant as, per her routine

procedure, she relied on the investigating officer to ask appropriate questions

to obtain an appropriate consent before proceeding to her portion of the kit

collection. At the hearing, she did not recall the specifics of any conversation

between Sgt. Pierce and defendant or how his wife came to sign the form. Once

given the go ahead by Sgt. Pierce, Nurse Rolfe conducted the blood draw, gave

the kit to Sgt. Pierce whereupon the two sealed the kit together. In addition to

4
caring for defendant, Nurse Rolfe was also responsible for a number of other

patients during this timeframe as well.

The Law Court has held that for the results of a blood test to be

admissible, the search in the form of a blood test must meet the Fourth

Amendment's reasonable requirements. See State v. Boyd, 2017 ME 36, ~ 8,

156 A.3d 748. "A search is reasonable if it is conducted pursuant to a legally

obtained warrant or if an exception to the warrant requirement applies." Id.

Further "a warrant is not required if a person voluntarily consents to the blood

draw or if exigent circumstances exist." Id. See also Birchfield v. North Dakota,

579 U.S. 438, 136 S . Ct. 2160 (2016). "To demonstrate that the consent

exception to a warrant requirement applies, however, the State must prove, 'by

a preponderance of the evidence, that an objective manifestation of consent

was given by word or gesture."' Id. (quoting State v Bailey, 2012 ME 55, ~ 16,

41 A.3d 535.). A showing of mere "acquiescence to a claim of legal authority" is

insufficient. See Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 549 (1968); see U.S.

v. Weidul, 325 F.3d 50, 53-54 (1st Cir. 2003) (applying a totality of the

circumstances approach to determine whether consent is voluntary). However,

consent "may be fairly inferred from context." Birch.field v. North Dakota, 579

U.S. 438, 467, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2185 (2016).

As Sgt. Pierce acknowledged on the stand, he did not recall specifically

asking defendant if he consented to the blood draw, or if he merely informed

him that the State Police had requested that he provide a blood sample. The

informed consent form was not read or presented to defendant but was signed

5
by Mrs. Blodgett who, for the purposes of this motion, did not have the

authority to consent to the search on 's behalf. Nurse Rolfe did not recall

consent being given by defendant. Merely informing defendant that a sample

was being requested does not demonstrate that he consented to the blood

draw. The court finds that defendant nodded in understanding when informed

that the police were seeking a blood kit be completed.

There is insufficient evidence that the question (whether he consented or

not) was ever asked of defendant. The State has not proven by a

preponderance of evidence that defendant voluntarily consented by an objective

manifestation given by either word or gesture.

The entry is:

The Motion to Suppress is GRANTED. Defendant's
blood samples and corresponding test results are
SUPPRESSED.

Dated: August 5, 2022 ~
Deborah P. Cashman
Justice, Maine Superior Court

6
Entered on the docket-2,l?} ~ ·