State of Arizona v. Tyler B.
290 P.3d 435
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- Tyler B., a juvenile, challenged suppression of a blood test taken during a DUI-related investigation in a delinquency proceeding.
- The blood was drawn after Tyler signed an implied-consent form and was tested under A.R.S. § 28-1321 as part of DUI processing.
- Parents were not asked for consent to draw or test Tyler’s blood; the consent was given by Tyler himself when detained and arrestee status began.
- The juvenile court suppressed the blood-test results, relying on Arizona’s Parents’ Bill of Rights to require parental consent before recording of a minor’s blood.
- The state appealed via special-action jurisdiction, arguing (i) the Parents’ Bill of Rights does not apply here and (ii) the implied-consent framework makes the testing permissible.
- The appellate court concluded the Parents’ Bill of Rights does not apply to law-enforcement blood draws in DUI investigations and reinstated the blood-test results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Parents’ Bill of Rights | Parents’ Bill of Rights does not bar blood testing by police in DUI cases. | Parents’ Bill of Rights prohibits creation/sharing of minor blood records without parental consent. | Bill of Rights does not apply to police blood draws in DUI investigations. |
| Validity of the suspect’s consent under implied-consent | Arrestee implied-consent permits blood testing; Tyler’s consent was voluntary. | Consent cannot be voluntary if obtained from a minor without parental input. | Implied-consent framework governs testing; no involuntariness shown. |
| Voluntariness standard for consent | Consent to testing is voluntary under the implied-consent statute. | The juvenile court’s voluntariness ruling should be reviewed for error of law. | The juvenile court erred in treating the consent as involuntary; voluntariness not established for suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Romley v. Martin, 203 Ariz. 46 (App. 2002) (special-action jurisdiction when no adequate appeal remedy)
- Andre M. v. Superior Court, 207 Ariz. 482 (2004) (clarifies voluntariness standard and admissibility of blood evidence)
- Carrillo v. Houser, 232 P.3d 1245 (2010) (refusal concept under implied consent statute)
- State v. White, 102 Ariz. 162 (1967) (blood evidence not testimonial; Fifth Amendment not implicated)
- State v. Superior Court, 155 Ariz. 403 (App. 1986) (due process considerations in blood-testing contexts)
- Tornabene v. Bonine ex rel. Arizona Highway Dept., 203 Ariz. 326 (App. 2002) (implied-consent context; refusal and testing rights)
- State ex rel. Verburg v. Jones, 211 Ariz. 413 (App. 2005) (implied-consent framework; power to refuse/not right to refuse)
- State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 (App. 1992) (implied-consent testing context; authority limits)
- Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542 (1969) (informed-consent considerations; Fourth Amendment context)