State v. Brant Lee Eversole, 160 Idaho 239

Officer found Eversole in driver’s seat of a truck stuck on a two‑foot brick berm with engine running; companions attempted to lift the truck.
Officer observed signs of intoxication; Eversole performed some field tests, was arrested, and refused a breath test.
Officer transported Eversole to a hospital and had his blood drawn; blood alcohol concentration was .279.
District court denied motions to dismiss (for alleged inoperability) and to suppress the blood evidence; Eversole entered a conditional Alford plea reserving appeal rights.
Court of Appeals vacated the suppression denial, holding refusal of breath test revoked implied consent to all testing; State petitioned for review.
Idaho Supreme Court affirmed denial of the motion to dismiss but reversed denial of the suppression motion, holding refusal of a breath test withdraws statutory implied consent to evidentiary testing generally and required suppression absent renewed consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether refusal of a breath test withdraws implied consent to other forms of evidentiary testing	Eversole: refusal of breath test withdraws implied consent to all alcohol concentration testing (no consent for blood draw)	State: refusal to one specific test does not revoke implied consent to other tests; statutory implied consent covers testing generally	Held: Refusal of offered breath test revoked implied consent to evidentiary testing generally (breath, blood, urine); blood draw without renewed consent was an unconstitutional warrantless search and suppressed
Whether vehicle operability required to establish "actual physical control" for DUI	Eversole: truck was inoperable (stuck on berm) so not in actual physical control	State: motor running and driver position suffice; operability is for the jury to decide	Held: Statute requires only driver position with motor running; district court did not abuse discretion denying dismissal

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw is a search under Fourth Amendment)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent exception to warrant requirement requires voluntariness)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (no per se exigency for warrantless blood draws; totality of circumstances required)
State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 (Idaho recognizing implied consent may be revoked post‑McNeely)
State v. Halseth, 157 Idaho 643 (statutorily implied consent may be withdrawn)
State v. Arrotta, 157 Idaho 773 (same: suspect can withdraw statutorily implied consent)
State v. Diaz, 144 Idaho 300 (prior Idaho precedent treating implied consent as satisfying constitutional consent requirement)
State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 (earlier Idaho rule that revocation of implied consent was ineffective)
Mills v. Swanson, 93 Idaho 279 (silence is not an express refusal to chemical testing)