32 N.E.3d 1273
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant was driving a boat in Hull harbor, struck a moored sailboat; passenger suffered fatal neck trauma.
- Police arrested defendant at the scene; officer smelled alcohol and observed signs of intoxication. Defendant taken to South Shore Hospital for treatment.
- At hospital the arresting officer read a consent-to-blood-test form and obtained a signed law-enforcement consent at 1:17 A.M.; a separate hospital consent was signed at 3:54 A.M. and blood was drawn thereafter. Defendant never withdrew consent.
- Officer read a motor-vehicle OUI statutory warning that refusal could lead to license suspension ranging “180 days to life,” referencing enhanced penalties for prior convictions under G. L. c. 90, § 24.
- The boating OUI statute (G. L. c. 90B, § 8) actually prescribes a single 120-day suspension for refusal, with no enhanced or lifetime suspension possibility.
- Defendant moved to suppress blood-test results, arguing consent was coerced by the incorrect, harsher warning; the motion judge granted suppression. Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Thompson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the inaccurate warning rendered consent coercive under constitutional standard | Consent valid; officer read a statutory form | Inaccurate warning (threat of life suspension) impliedly coerced consent | Motion judge applied constitutional standard and found coercion, but appellate court says constitutional standard not controlling here |
| Proper legal standard for evaluating consent to blood test after boating OUI arrest | Statutory "implied consent" governs; validate consent by statutory criteria | Consent invalid if given after coercive statutory warning | Court: Use statutory standard for implied consent (not the constitutional search-and-seizure test) |
| Whether, under statutory standard, defendant's consent was effective | Consent established by cooperation and verbal agreement per Commonwealth witnesses | Coercion vitiated consent due to misleading warning | Court vacated suppression and remanded for factfinding under statutory standard |
| Remedy for use of incorrect motor-vehicle OUI warning in boating OUI context | Remand for application of correct statutory consent criteria | Suppression of blood evidence | Court: Don’t suppress per se; remand so motion judge can make findings under the non-constitutional statutory consent test |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 468 Mass. 417 (discusses standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 370 Mass. 548 (consent must be unfettered by coercion under constitutional analysis)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 (constitutional voluntariness standard for consent searches)
- Commonwealth v. Davidson, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 846 (implied consent under motor-vehicle OUI; statutory basis for chemical testing)
- Commonwealth v. Carson, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 368 (statutory criteria for valid consent: verbal agreement, lack of objection, or cooperation)
- Commonwealth v. Hinds, 437 Mass. 54 (test for scope of consent under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Cantalupo, 380 Mass. 173 (framework for evaluating consent scope)
- Commonwealth v. Mendes, 361 Mass. 507 (state and federal consent standards discussed)