City Of Kent v. Joanne Kandler
199 Wash. App. 22
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Jan. 2015 Joanne Kandler was arrested for DUI (alleged marijuana impairment); an officer asked her to consent to a voluntary blood test and informed her of the right to refuse, right to consult an attorney, and that results could be used against her; she consented.
- Kandler moved to suppress the blood-test evidence, arguing officers failed to give the statutory "implied consent" warnings required by RCW 46.20.308 before obtaining consent.
- Municipal court granted suppression; superior court reversed, concluding the version of RCW 46.20.308 in effect then applied only to breath tests, not blood tests.
- The 2013 amendments to RCW 46.20.308 removed references to blood testing in response to Missouri v. McNeely; earlier versions had applied to blood as well.
- The question presented: whether the implied-consent statute and its warnings applied to Kandler’s blood test such that lack of those warnings would invalidate consent and require suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 46.20.308 (as in effect at arrest) required statutory warnings before obtaining consent to a blood test | Kandler: statute references to THC and blood mean it applied to blood tests and required warnings before consent | City: the statute as amended applied only to breath tests; it did not mandate warnings before obtaining consent to a blood test | Statute applied to breath tests only; it did not require the statutory warnings before a voluntary blood test consent |
| Whether consent to a warrantless blood draw was invalid because statutory warnings were not given | Kandler: absence of statutory warnings rendered consent invalid under Avery | City: consent exception to warrant requirement governs; voluntary consent is sufficient | Because statute did not apply, voluntariness standard controls; Kandler did not contest voluntariness, so evidence admissible |
| Whether Avery (requiring warnings when statute applies) controls here | Kandler: Avery requires suppression when implied-consent statute applies to blood | City: Avery is inapplicable because that case involved an earlier statute that expressly covered blood; here statute does not | Avery is inapplicable; where statute does not apply, voluntary consent suffices |
| Whether State met burden to show consent exception to warrant requirement | Kandler: (no separate voluntariness challenge raised) | City: State only needed to show voluntary consent | State met burden because Kandler voluntarily consented and did not argue coerced consent |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tibbles, 169 Wn.2d 364 (discusses narrow exceptions to warrant requirement)
- State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126 (consent must be voluntary to justify warrantless search)
- State v. Baird, 187 Wn.2d 210 (breath tests and interplay with implied consent warnings)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (warrantless blood draws not automatically justified by exigent circumstances)
- State v. Avery, 103 Wn. App. 527 (when implied-consent statute applies to blood, statutory warnings are required)
- State v. Rivard, 131 Wn.2d 63 (voluntary consent to blood test can validate warrantless blood draw when statute does not apply)