State v. BurrisÂ, 253 N.C. App. 525

On April 13, 2012, Officer Christopher Hill encountered a red Ford Explorer at a hotel. Defendant was in the driver’s seat; the engine was off, and the vehicle was stopped under the hotel overhang (not in a parking spot).
Hill asked for identifications; defendant exited the vehicle and handed Hill his driver’s license. Hill smelled alcohol on defendant. Hill told them to “hang tight” while he spoke to the desk clerk.
After speaking with the clerk, Hill returned, asked if defendant had been driving, and defendant said yes. Hill conducted field sobriety tests and a portable breath test (PBT) that read .10; Hill then arrested defendant at 2:48 a.m. and took him to the police department.
At the station defendant refused the breath test; Hill transported him to the hospital for a blood draw, read implied-consent warnings, defendant called a witness and delayed 30 minutes, then refused the blood draw and was compelled to submit without a warrant.
Defendant was charged, convicted of impaired driving in district court, appealed to superior court where suppression motions (statements and blood draw) and a motion to dismiss were denied; defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of statements (Miranda)	State: Officer’s on‑scene questioning before arrest was noncustodial; Miranda warnings not required.	Burris: Retention of his license and being told to “hang tight” made him seized/custodial; statements after retention required Miranda warnings.	Court: Not custodial for Miranda. Although license retention was a seizure for Fourth Amendment, custody for Miranda requires restraint comparable to formal arrest; totality of circumstances did not show such restraint, so statements admissible.
Warrantless blood draw (exigent circumstances)	State: Officer had probable cause and reasonable belief delay to obtain a warrant would allow alcohol dissipation; exigency justified warrantless draw.	Burris: No exigent circumstances; warrant required.	Court: Denial affirmed. Trial court findings (PBT .10, arrest time, distances, single officer, estimated warrant delay) supported a reasonable belief of dissipation and exigency; suppression denied.
Motion to dismiss (sufficiency of evidence)	State: Admissions plus circumstantial evidence (vehicle location, registration, route described) suffice to show defendant drove on a public way.	Burris: No independent evidence aside from his statement that he operated the vehicle.	Court: Denial affirmed. Defendant’s admission plus circumstantial evidence were substantial evidence for jury to find he drove on a public roadway.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing requirement of warnings during custodial interrogation)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (traffic stops are generally noncustodial; custody requires restraints comparable to formal arrest)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw must be justified by the circumstances)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency; exigency is case‑specific)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (breath tests may be searched incident to arrest; warrantless blood draws are more intrusive and not automatically allowed incident to arrest)
State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332 (North Carolina follows the indicia‑of‑formal‑arrest test, not the broader “free to leave” standard, for Miranda custody)
State v. Fletcher, 202 N.C. App. 107 (officer’s testimony about magistrate delays and hospital/magistrate distance can support exigency for warrantless blood draw)
State v. Dahlquist, 231 N.C. App. 100 (post‑McNeely case holding that totality of circumstances may support exigent‑circumstances exception)