State of Maine v. Robert I. Boyd Jr.
2017 ME 36
| Me. | 2017Background
- Officer stopped Robert Boyd for an expired inspection sticker and smelled alcohol; field sobriety tests led to probable cause to arrest for OUI.
- Breath test attempts failed: a breath machine malfunctioned and later Boyd coughed during the observation period, potentially invalidating a breath test.
- Officer arranged for a paramedic to draw Boyd’s blood; no warrant was obtained, no statutory warnings were read, and Boyd’s express consent was not requested or recorded. Boyd did not object or expressly refuse.
- Blood test later showed a .15 g/100 mL BAC; Boyd was charged with operating under the influence and moved to suppress the blood evidence.
- The suppression court found Boyd did not consent and that no exigency justified the warrantless blood draw; the State appealed with Attorney General approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boyd voluntarily consented to a warrantless blood draw | Boyd’s acquiescence and cooperation amounted to consent | Acquiescence without explicit consent does not satisfy Fourth Amendment consent | No — mere cooperation/acquiescence did not establish objective voluntary consent |
| Whether Maine’s implied-consent statute transforms acquiescence into consent | Implied-consent framework plus failure to object equals consent | Statute does not "deem" consent; it requires submission but does not substitute for voluntary consent | No — statute’s current language does not automatically convert acquiescence into voluntary consent |
| Whether exigent circumstances excused the lack of a warrant | (State did not argue exigency) | No exigency shown; breath test alternatives existed | No exigent-circumstances exception applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. (warrantless blood draws are more intrusive; searches must be reasonable)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create per se exigency)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (consent exception to warrant requirement principles)
- State v. Cress, 576 A.2d 1366 (Maine: voluntary consent requires objective manifestation beyond mere acquiescence)
- State v. Bailey, 41 A.3d 535 (burden and standard for proving consent in Maine)
- State v. Collier, 66 A.3d 563 (appellate review of suppression findings)
Order affirmed: suppression of blood-test evidence upheld.