826 S.E.2d 332
Va. Ct. App.2019Background
- Trooper stopped Ryan Taylor for speeding (82 mph in 60 mph zone); officer smelled alcohol and marijuana; Taylor admitted recent use.
- Taylor failed field sobriety testing and was arrested for DUI; because he admitted alcohol and marijuana use, officer took him to the hospital for a blood draw.
- At the hospital the trooper read Virginia’s implied-consent warning and informed Taylor he could face sanction for refusing; Taylor consented and blood was drawn.
- Lab testing produced a BAC of 0.128%; Taylor had two prior DUI convictions within ten years, so charged with DUI, third offense under Va. Code § 18.2-266.
- Taylor moved to suppress the warrantless blood draw, arguing Birchfield v. North Dakota forbade such draws absent a warrant and that his consent was coerced; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless blood draw should be suppressed under Birchfield | Taylor: Birchfield forbids warrantless blood draws incident to arrest and his consent was coerced, so evidence must be suppressed | Commonwealth: Officer relied in good faith on existing Virginia law (implied consent with criminal penalties at the time); exclusionary rule should not apply | Court held suppression not required because officer acted in good-faith reliance on then-binding law; exclusionary rule not warranted |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict of DUI, third offense | Taylor: Even with blood result, evidence insufficient to prove he was under the influence while driving | Commonwealth: BAC 0.128% prima facie shows intoxication at time of offense; DMV record shows two prior DUIs | Court held evidence sufficient: BAC above 0.08% permits inference of intoxication at time of driving and prior convictions established third-offense status |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (holding criminal penalties for refusing warrantless blood tests violate Fourth Amendment; distinguished breath tests)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith reliance on existing precedent can preclude exclusion)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule deterrence rationale and good-faith exception)
- Peltier v. United States, 422 U.S. 531 (1975) (evidence seized in reasonable good-faith reliance may be admitted despite later changes in law)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (warrant requirement depends on exigent circumstances; noted widespread adoption of implied-consent laws)
- Shin v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 517 (2017) (Virginia decision upholding implied-consent statute prior to Birchfield)
- Reed v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 332 (2018) (exclusionary rule not applied ex post facto where officer relied in good faith on then-existing constitutional standards)