State of Arizona, Appellee v. Don Jacob Havatone, Appellant — Pelander, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

The separate opinion would uphold admission of the blood evidence because officers reasonably relied on Arizona's then-valid implied-consent statute and the prevailing understanding that alcohol dissipation created exigent circumstances. It also concludes that suppressing the evidence would not further the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule because the officer's conduct was objectively reasonable and nonculpable. The opinion agrees that later law requires case-specific exigency for future warrantless blood draws but disagrees with applying that requirement retroactively. Pelander, V.C.J., joined by Brutinel, J., concurs in part and dissents from the majority's suppression ruling.