Looks like, to me, there is confusion about the law and the Supreme Courts past decisions on how they have ruled on past cases of drawing blood samples from suspected drunk drivers. Emergency Hospitals have their protocols, but so do police departments, and looks like they are not all on the same page.
In this case, a driver was running from the police, and during a police chase, ended up running head on into the Tractor and being killed in the incident. The Truck Driver's truck caught on fire and the driver was burned rather badly and barely escaped with his life, was ambulanced to the hospital.
Why the Police wanted a blood sample of the Truck Driver, must have been a routine police protocol. But, the Truck Driver was in a comatose condition, as the police were seeking his blood sample. I am not sure that the police seeking a blood sample of the Truck Driver was even based on a probable cause.
But, anyway, after all is said and done. The Police Department ended up paying 500k to the nurse for damages and restitution in the matter for her false arrest. The arrest did appear excessive and unnecessary to me as well.
But because "Probable Cause" is definitely in the text of the law itself, regarding the legality of obtaining a blood sample, this needs to be clarified in the text so that both the police and the Emergency rooms don't have confusion as to what the law is.
I am just saying that the law is confusing and the Supreme Court has not been consistent on past rulings, and has flip-flopped on similar cases. There seems to be no clear-cut precedent for them to be able to rely upon. In every case the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding Blood Tests, has had different probable causes for the test.
Time is if essence when you need an alcohol blood level, as the human body will naturally breath out an ounce of alcohol in the blood every hour- depending on Body Size of course!