Bobeck v. Idaho Transportation Department
363 P.3d 861
Idaho Ct. App.2015Background
- In December 2013 Jonna Bobeck was in a nighttime crash; she was semi-conscious or asleep at times and taken to a hospital; her four‑year‑old was in the car.
- An Idaho State Trooper read the Administrative License Suspension (ALS) advisory at the hospital and a blood draw detected prescription zolpidem and trazodone.
- The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) suspended Bobeck’s license for 90 days; a hearing officer sustained the suspension, finding she was "substantially informed" of consequences of refusing/failing testing.
- The district court affirmed the administrative decision on judicial review; Bobeck appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- Primary legal questions: whether the officer satisfied I.C. § 18‑8002A(2) by reading the ALS advisory while Bobeck was semi‑conscious/sleeping, and whether Idaho’s implied consent statute justified the warrantless blood draw given recent Fourth Amendment developments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bobeck) | Defendant's Argument (ITD/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALS advisory was validly given when the driver was semi‑conscious/asleep | Officer’s reading while she was asleep/semi‑conscious did not inform her; she lacked comprehension | Reading the advisory satisfied statutory notice; officer need not ensure comprehension of an intoxicated or unconscious person | Reading the ALS form satisfied I.C. § 18‑8002A(2); suspension upheld |
| Whether implied consent statute can justify warrantless blood draw post‑McNeely/Wulff | McNeely/Wulff nullified implied‑consent as a per se justification; an unconscious person cannot give actual consent | Implied consent remains valid but revocable; Bobeck implicitly consented by driving and did not revoke or resist the draw | Implied consent was effective here; no revocation occurred; warrantless draw justified for ALS purposes |
| Whether unconsciousness operates as withdrawal of consent | Unconsciousness prevents giving actual consent and is not an effective consent or waiver | Lack of objection/resistance means no withdrawal; statutory implied consent still operative | Court rejected claim that sleep/unconsciousness withdrew implied consent in this administrative context |
| Standard of review for agency ALS decision | N/A (challenging sufficiency of evidence) | Agency findings bind reviewing courts unless clearly erroneous; substantial evidence standard applies | Court defers to agency factual findings supported by substantial evidence and affirms administrative and district court rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DeWitt, 145 Idaho 709 (Idaho 2008) (upholding ALS where advisory was read while driver was unconscious)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (warrant requirement in blood draws not dispensed with routinely by natural‑dissipation exigency)
- State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 (Idaho 2014) (Idaho implied‑consent statute cannot be treated as an irrevocable per se exception to the warrant requirement)
- State v. Halseth, 157 Idaho 643 (Idaho 2014) (consent may be withdrawn; implied consent does not justify forced draw when refused)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draw is a search under Fourth Amendment)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968) (acquiescence to authority is not consent)
- State v. Padley, 354 Wis.2d 545 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishing implied consent from actual consent; actual consent required for warrantless blood draw)