State v. Degarmo, 942 N.W.2d 217

Deputy stopped David E. Degarmo for expired registration, smelled burnt marijuana, found a small baggie of marijuana and a pipe in the vehicle, and arrested him for DUI (drug impairment).
At the scene and in the cruiser, officer observed signs the officer associated with marijuana use (bloodshot eyes, slow speech, elevated pulse) and transported Degarmo to a detox center for a standardized Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE).
Officer administered a breath test (advisement form read and signed indicating a breath/alcohol test); breath test showed no alcohol. Officer then completed the DRE, concluded Degarmo was impaired by marijuana, and requested a urine test.
Officer read a written “Consent to Search for Blood/Urine Alcohol or Drug Evidence” form advising Degarmo of his right to refuse and that a warrant would be sought if he refused; Degarmo signed the form and provided a urine sample, which lab testing showed THC metabolites.
Degarmo moved to suppress the urine-test results as involuntary and unlawful under Birchfield; the county court denied suppression, the district court affirmed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court granted bypass review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Degarmo’s written consent to a warrantless urine search was voluntary	Consent was coerced by prior postarrest advisement and by being in custody/police-dominated atmosphere	Consent was voluntary: form expressly advised right to refuse; statement that a warrant could be sought is not coercive; custody alone is not dispositive	Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; suppression properly denied
Whether court must resolve Birchfield/implied-consent question about warrantless urine/blood	Argued urine obtained without warrant violated Birchfield and consent was involuntary	State relied on actual consent and therefore court need not decide Birchfield implications	Court did not decide Birchfield/implied-consent issue because actual consent rendered suppression unnecessary

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (Supreme Court decision limiting warrantless blood draws; distinguishes breath and blood testing rules)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood draw is a search under the Fourth Amendment)
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (testing of bodily fluids is a search implicating Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) (custody alone does not automatically render consent involuntary)
State v. Schriner, 303 Neb. 476 (Neb. 2019) (consent voluntariness judged by totality of circumstances; recorded interactions relevant)
State v. Tucker, 262 Neb. 940 (2001) (statement that a warrant could be obtained is not coercion)
State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840 (Neb. 2016) (totality-of-circumstances remains appropriate test post-Birchfield for actual consent issues)