State v. Boyd
156 A.3d 748
| Me. | 2017Background
- Officer stopped Robert Boyd for an expired inspection sticker, smelled alcohol, and conducted field sobriety tests that gave probable cause to arrest for OUI.
- Boyd was arrested and taken for a breath test; the first machine malfunctioned and at a second location Boyd coughed during the observation period, risking invalid breath results.
- An officer located a paramedic who drew Boyd’s blood; the officer did not obtain Boyd’s express consent, read refusal warnings, inform him of the right to a physician-drawn sample, or obtain a warrant.
- Boyd did not expressly object or refuse; the paramedic testified Boyd was cooperative and did not object.
- Boyd was charged with OUI based in part on a blood-alcohol result of 0.15; he moved to suppress the blood-test evidence.
- The suppression court found Boyd’s mere acquiescence did not constitute voluntary consent, found no exigent circumstances, and suppressed the blood-test results; the State appealed with the Attorney General’s approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boyd voluntarily consented to a warrantless blood draw | State: Boyd’s acquiescence plus Maine’s implied-consent regime sufficed as consent | Boyd: Acquiescence is not affirmative consent; no warnings or express consent were given | Court: Acquiescence did not objectively manifest voluntary consent; suppression affirmed |
| Whether Maine’s implied-consent statute established consent absent express assent | State: The statutory duty to submit and consequences of refusal convert acquiescence into consent | Boyd: Statute no longer deems consent; mandatory language and penalties do not equal voluntary consent | Court: Statute does not permit inferring consent from driving alone; implied-consent warnings/procedures must be followed to affect consent determinations |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw | State: (Not argued) | Boyd: No exigency shown | Court: No exigent-circumstances exception applies; not relied upon by State |
| Burden and standard of proof on appeal from suppression | State: Must show trial court was compelled to find consent | Boyd: Suppression court’s findings should stand unless clearly erroneous | Court: State failed to show the court was compelled to find voluntary consent; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (blood tests are more intrusive than breath tests; warrant or exception required)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (metabolization of alcohol alone does not create a per se exigency)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 126 S. Ct. 1515 (U.S. 2006) (consent is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement)
- State v. Cress, 576 A.2d 1366 (Me. 1990) (defendant’s affirmative actions can demonstrate voluntary consent)
- State v. Bailey, 41 A.3d 535 (Me. 2012) (State must prove objective manifestation of consent by a preponderance)
- State v. Collier, 66 A.3d 563 (Me. 2013) (appellate burden when the State lost suppression ruling)