State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/tyler B.
302 P.3d 609
| Ariz. | 2013Background
- Arizona’s implied consent statute AR.S. § 28-1321 governs police-imposed blood and breath tests and sets penalties for refusal.
- Tyler B., 16, was detained at a school after the monitor detected marijuana and paraphernalia in his car, prompting a DUI investigation.
- A deputy read Miranda rights, arrested Tyler for DUI, handcuffed him, then, after a pause, retrieved a phlebotomy kit for a blood draw.
- The deputy read an implied consent admonition twice; Tyler verbally and in writing consented to a blood draw, and two vials were collected.
- The juvenile court suppressed the blood-draw evidence, ruling Tyler’s consent involuntary under totality of circumstances and noting a PBR concern.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding no Fourth Amendment issue and that the PBR did not apply; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve central questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile arrestee’s consent to a blood draw must be voluntary under the Fourth Amendment | Butler argued implied consent statute suffices; voluntariness not required. | State maintained implied consent statute does not implicate voluntariness. | Yes; consent must be voluntary for warrantless blood draw. |
| Whether a juvenile’s age and parental presence affect voluntariness of consent | Age and parental presence should be considered factors in voluntariness. | Age/parental presence not required in all cases; statute governs. | Age and parental presence are relevant but not determinative factors. |
| Whether the Parents’ Bill of Rights (PBR) affects suppression of blood-draw evidence | PBR violations should trigger suppression. | PBR concerns do not automatically suppress evidence or affect admissibility. | PBR does not require suppression in this context. |
| What standard of appellate review applies to voluntariness determinations under the Fourth Amendment | Abuse-of-discretion is appropriate given factual record. | Voluntariness should be analyzed under a different standard when facts are undisputed. | Abuse-of-discretion applies; however, the ultimate test is voluntariness under the totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (blood draws require Fourth Amendment consideration; warrant preferred when feasible)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent assessed by totality of circumstances)
- Carrillo v. Houser, 224 Ariz. 463 (2010) (implied-consent statute requires express consent; not necessarily constitutional issue)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011) (age relevant to custody considerations for youths)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juvenile culpability and maturity considerations)
- In re Andre M., 207 Ariz. 482 (2004) (Fifth Amendment context; parental presence can affect voluntariness)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule for violations of Fourth Amendment)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (per se unreasonable searches absent specific exceptions in certain contexts)
- Bustamonte v. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent to search must be voluntary and free)