Arizona Court Limits When a Blood Draw Gets Suppressed

Last updated July 30, 2026 · Reviewed by James Novak

A right-to-counsel violation before a blood draw does not automatically force Arizona courts to suppress the results or dismiss the case. Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed that rule on July 24, 2026, in State v. Stempel, affirming a conviction even though the trial court had already found the defendant’s right to counsel was violated before a second, warrant-based blood draw.

The court explained that suppression requires a real connection between the violation and the evidence obtained, not just the violation itself. Because the second blood draw came from an independently obtained search warrant rather than anything the defendant said or agreed to after being denied access to counsel, the appellate court found no such connection and upheld the decision to admit it, the same evidentiary fight that comes up throughout Arizona DUI defense whenever a blood or breath test is challenged.

What Happened in State v. Stempel

The case arose from a Phoenix collision in which the defendant, driving well over the speed limit, ran a red light and struck another vehicle, a crash that ultimately proved fatal. He was also injured and taken to the hospital. His blood was drawn there for medical purposes, without any police involvement, and later testing showed a blood alcohol content of 0.336. A Phoenix police officer then obtained a search warrant for a second draw, taken roughly three hours later, which showed a BAC of 0.274. He was charged with second-degree murder and endangerment and, after an eight-day trial, convicted on both counts.

Before trial, the defense argued that police had denied the defendant access to counsel while he was at the hospital, including asking a social worker not to contact his family and treating him as being in custody. The trial court agreed a right-to-counsel violation had occurred, but declined to dismiss the charges or suppress either blood draw, and this appeal followed.

Why the Right-to-Counsel Violation Didn’t Doom the Case

The defense argued the violation was “structural error,” a category of defect serious enough to require automatic reversal regardless of its actual effect on the trial. Structural error is a defect so fundamental that it undermines a criminal trial’s basic function as a means of determining guilt or innocence, and Arizona courts find it in only a narrow set of circumstances. The Court of Appeals held that a right-to-counsel violation of this kind, before any blood draw the defendant was actually asked to consent to, does not meet that bar, and the defense cited no authority holding otherwise.

How Arizona Courts Decide Whether to Suppress Evidence After a Rights Violation

Under Arizona law, a right-to-counsel violation only requires suppressing evidence when a real connection exists between the violation and how that evidence was obtained. Where police get a valid search warrant independent of anything said or done during the violation, courts have found no such connection and have allowed the evidence to stand.

The court also addressed which standard of review applies to a trial judge’s chosen remedy for a rights violation like this one. The defense wanted de novo review; the appellate court applied the more deferential abuse-of-discretion standard instead, consistent with how Arizona courts already review the denial of a motion to dismiss or suppress. Dismissing the charges outright is, in the court’s words, “the most drastic remedy,” and the exclusionary rule does not mandate it merely because some other, lesser remedy was available.

What This Ruling Means for Arizona DUI Cases

James Novak has built his defense practice around exactly these evidentiary fights over blood and breath testing procedure in Arizona DUI and vehicular cases. I represent clients through this sequence constantly, where an officer or hospital draws blood and whether that draw survives a motion to suppress typically comes down to whether the State had a warrant, valid consent, or some other lawful basis that stands on its own, independent of anything that went wrong earlier in the encounter.

Most Arizona DUI stops never reach a right-to-counsel dispute like Stempel’s, because the state’s implied consent law under A.R.S. § 28-1321 already governs whether a driver’s blood or breath can be tested and what happens if they refuse. But where a client is hospitalized, injured, or otherwise held for an extended period before testing, the same questions Stempel raises, whether police cut off access to counsel and whether that cutoff actually tainted the evidence, come up regularly, and DUI cases involving an accident are exactly where they surface most.

Frequently Asked Questions About Blood Draws and the Right to Counsel in Arizona

Does a Right-to-Counsel Violation Automatically Suppress Blood Test Evidence in Arizona?

No. Arizona courts require a real nexus between the violation and the evidence before ordering suppression. Evidence obtained through an independent, lawful source, such as a valid search warrant, generally is not suppressed even where a right-to-counsel violation occurred earlier in the encounter.

What Is Structural Error, and Why Didn’t It Apply Here?

Structural error is a defect so fundamental it undermines a trial’s basic function as a means of determining guilt or innocence, and courts recognize it in only a narrow set of circumstances. The Court of Appeals found no authority holding that a right-to-counsel violation before a blood draw qualifies as structural error.

Can Police Get a Second Blood Draw After the First One?

Yes, and a second draw obtained through a valid search warrant is treated as independent evidence. In Stempel, the first draw was taken for medical purposes with no police involvement, and the second was taken hours later under a warrant, which the court found was not tainted by the earlier right-to-counsel violation.

How Do Arizona Courts Review a Judge’s Decision Not to Suppress Evidence?

For an abuse of discretion, not de novo. Arizona courts defer to a trial judge’s factual findings and review the legal conclusions independently, but the ultimate decision on a motion to dismiss or suppress stands unless the judge abused that discretion.

Facing DUI or Vehicular Charges Involving a Blood Draw? Call James Novak