Font ResizeA suspected drunken driver who resisted requests to draw her blood at a crash site has set off a debate on when "no" means "no."
The eventual answer from the Utah Supreme Court could guide police officers on how to handle future cases. It also will determine whether an automobile homicide conviction will stand against Susan Tripp, who was involved in a fatal crash with motorcyclist Daniel Pracht.
The Utah Court of Appeals concluded last year that Tripp did not consent to a blood test and granted her a new trial, at which test results showing a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 cannot be used.
Tripp refused repeatedly to have her blood drawn because she has a fear of needles, court documents say. Finally, a police blood technician put a tourniquet on her arm to find a vein. The technician has testified that he stuck Tripp with a needle quickly and that she probably did not know he was prepared to take the blood.
The appeals court said that Tripp did not consent to the draw simply by failing to pull her arm away from the technician.
At a Tuesday hearing, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Gray asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, saying Tripp did eventually agreed to have her blood taken. He also argued that police would have obtained a warrant if she had continued to refuse and that discovery of her blood-alcohol level was inevitable.
But defense attorney Ron Yengich said Tripp refused five times to allow her
"They were not going to take 'no' for an answer," Yengich said.
After 2½ hours, the technician took the blood without permission, he said.
In questioning the attorneys, Justice Jill Parrish noted that court briefs say Tripp kept declining to have her blood taken but the police "kept coming at her." She asked: "How many times does a person have to say 'no'?"
Chief Justice Christine Durham said the officers could have applied for a search warrant for a blood draw, rather than pressing Tripp for consent.
"If the officers had taken 'no' for 'no,' they would have gotten their evidence," she said.
The justices took the arguments under consideration and will issue a decision later.
Pracht's widow, Dee Pracht-Williams, who attended the hearing, said a driver involved in a fatal accident should be required by law to submit to a blood test. She also said she does not believe officers were unduly pressuring Tripp.
"The whole process is very frustrating," she said.
Susan Tripp struck a motorcyclist as she entered the intersection of State Road 111 and Old Bingham Highway on April 23, 2004, according to police. They said Daniel Pracht, 52, was going through the intersection when Tripp, who was driving a Ford Taurus, pulled into his path. Pracht died the next day from his injuries.
Tripp, 51, was found guilty by a jury of third-degree felony automobile homicide and a misdemeanor charge of failure to yield. She was sentenced to a year in jail, which she has served.
Tripp was granted a new trial last year by the Utah Court of Appeals, which ruled she did not give consent to have her blood drawn by police and suppressed the results. The Attorney General's Office is asking the state Supreme Court to overturn that ruling and affirm Tripp's convictions.
