State v. Baird, 187 Wash. 2d 210

Two consolidated DUI cases: Baird (consented to breath test; results > .08) and Adams (refused breath test). Both arrested after roadside observations and field sobriety tests.
Both moved to suppress evidence: Baird challenged voluntariness of consent (claiming statutory warning coerced him); Adams sought to suppress evidence of her refusal. Both argued a constitutional right to refuse warrantless breath tests.
State argued exigent circumstances (alcohol dissipation) created a per se exception to the warrant requirement for breath tests under Washington’s implied consent statute.
Trial courts suppressed Baird’s breath results and evidence of Adams’s refusal relying on McNeely and Gauthier; superior court granted interlocutory review and requested direct review by the Supreme Court.
Washington Supreme Court reversed: held exigency is not per se, breath tests fall within the search-incident-to-arrest exception (per Birchfield), and statutory implied consent makes refusal admissible as evidence of guilt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alcohol dissipation creates per se exigent circumstances to permit warrantless breath tests	State: yes — dissipation makes warrant impracticable in all DUI cases	Baird/Adams: no — exigency requires totality of circumstances per McNeely	Rejected per se rule; exigency is case-by-case (McNeely controls)
Whether warrantless breath tests are permissible absent exigency	State: breath tests under implied consent are exempt from warrant requirement	Defendants: warrant or valid exception needed; otherwise refusal is protected	Breath tests are permissible as search incident to arrest (Birchfield); no constitutional right to refuse
Whether refusal to take a statutorily requested breath test is admissible at criminal trial	State: refusal admissible under RCW 46.20.308 and legislative scheme	Defendants: admitting refusal penalizes exercise of right and is unfair (Gauthier)	Admissible — implied-consent statute conditions driving privilege; refusal is not a constitutional right but statutory, so admissible
Whether statutory warning about admissibility coerced Baird’s consent making results inadmissible	Baird: warning was an unlawful threat, coerced consent	State: warning is statutorily authorized and admissibility stands	Rejected; because refusal admissible, warning did not render consent coerced for constitutional purposes

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (alcohol dissipation does not create per se exigency; exigency assessed case-by-case)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (breath tests may be conducted as search incident to arrest; motorists have no constitutional right to refuse breath tests)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (recognized exigent-circumstances rationale in blood-draw case under totality of circumstances)
State v. Long, 113 Wn.2d 266 (1989) (refusal to submit to breath test is a statutory privilege and legislature may make refusal admissible)
State v. Garcia-Salgado, 170 Wn.2d 176 (2010) (breath/bodily-sample tests are searches; State must prove warrant or exception)
State v. Judge, 100 Wn.2d 706 (1983) (interpreting implied consent amendments and upholding nonconsensual testing in certain circumstances)
State v. Bostrom, 127 Wn.2d 580 (1995) (statutory warning that refusal may be used in trial sufficient to inform drivers)
State v. Gauthier, 174 Wn. App. 257 (2013) (refusal to a warrantless search not falling under an exception may not be used as evidence)