Not sure if this has been pointed out yet or not (didn't see where it has been, but I may have missed it), but the detective was trying to get a blood sample from the driver who was the VICTIM of the criminal driver, and not the driver who caused the accident.
Consequently, there was no probable cause that the victim of the crash had caused the crash or had committed any criminal violation. Hence, the officer would have been unable to obtain a warrant to collect the blood sample from the victim driver. Implied consent would not have been applicable, either, for the same reason. Implied consent is aimed at drivers who are suspected of committing the act of driving while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, not at accident victims who are not suspected of wrong-doing
My assumption is that the officer was attempting to obtain blood evidence which would prove the victim drivers was NOT under the influence at the time of the crash in order to deflect any future defense offered by the suspect driver that the victim caused the collision. From the tone of the article, it appears the victim driver was severely burned in the crash and may not survive. If that is the case, the prosecution would have no way to refute a claim the victim driver may have been intoxicated absent a blood sample.
The SCOTUS has decided a blood draw from an unconscious driver, absent a warrant or other recognized exigency, is unconstitutional and cannot be used as evidence against the accused in court. However, I'm not aware of any case law in which the police have obtained a warrantless (and without consent) blood sample from a crime victim in an effort to show the victim was not intoxicated, which has subsequently been deemed unconstitutional.
Not condoning the officers behavior in any way, but the facts surrounding this instance may not be as cut-and-dry as some assume...
