Whether the Court should resolve the question of whether law enforcement officers can rely on the exigent circumstance exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement to justify the warrantless extraction of blood from a suspected drunk driver when the officers make no attempt to obtain a warrant and present no evidence that a warrant judge was unavailable

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the Court should resolve the following question for which the state courts are split (including the Florida appellate court of last resort in this case): can law enforcement officers rely on the exigent circumstance exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement to justify the warrantless extraction of blood from a suspected drunk driver when the officers make no attempt to obtain a warrant prior to forcibly taking the blood sample and presented no evidence that a warrant judge was actually unavailable (which, in essence, would create another per se exigency in contravention of the Court’s holding in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2018)). 2. Whether a state statute silent concerning mens rea which criminalizes a driver’s failure to render aid to a person injured in a crash was ii unconstitutionally applied to the Petitioner in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where the evidence presented by both the State and the Petitioner supported the defense that the Petitioner was wholly unaware that another person was injured but the trial court refused to instruct the jury that the Petitioner must have known of the injury in order to be found guilty. iii B. PARTIES INVOLVED The parties involved are identified in the style of the case. iv C.