State v. Dennis John Halseth, 157 Idaho 643

On Nov. 5, 2012, Idaho law enforcement identified and pursued a truck with stolen plates; the driver (Dennis Halseth) fled and was later stopped and arrested in Washington.
A Washington trooper, after Halseth refused field sobriety tests, transported him to a Spokane hospital where technicians drew blood over his verbal objections; no warrant was obtained.
Idaho charged Halseth with DUI (a felony based on prior convictions) and moved to suppress the warrantless blood results; he did not dispute probable cause for the arrest.
The State conceded McNeely prevented a per se exigency rule based on alcohol dissipation and did not assert exigent circumstances; instead, the State relied on Idaho/Washington implied consent statutes and prior Idaho precedent treating implied consent as authorizing blood draws.
The district court granted suppression, reasoning McNeely requires case‑by‑case exigency analysis and that implied‑consent statutes do not automatically permit nonconsensual warrantless blood draws when the subject objects.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding implied‑consent statutes do not authorize involuntary warrantless blood draws after a motorist withdraws or objects to consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a state implied‑consent statute authorizes a warrantless involuntary blood draw when a driver objects	Implied‑consent statutes (Idaho/Wash.) constitute statutory consent that justifies warrantless blood draws; earlier Idaho precedent treated implied consent as encompassing blood tests	Objecting driver withdrew consent; implied consent cannot be treated as irrevocable authorization to bypass the Fourth Amendment	The court held implied‑consent statutes do not justify a warrantless blood draw once the motorist withdraws or objects; suppression affirmed
Whether consent to search may be withdrawn, making the implied consent ineffective against the Fourth Amendment	Implied consent is statutory acceptance that binds the driver and permits testing without a warrant	Consent must be voluntary and can be withdrawn; refusal/objection defeats any implied consent as a Fourth Amendment exception	The court held consent must be voluntary and may be withdrawn; by objecting the defendant revoked implied consent and the warrantless draw was unreasonable

Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957) (upheld nonwarranted blood draw reasoning then applicable pre‑Mapp)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (incorporation of Fourth Amendment to the States)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (permitted warrantless blood draw as exigent incident to arrest due to alcohol dissipation)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent must be voluntary)
State v. Bock, 80 Idaho 296 (1958) (Idaho precedent on compelled blood tests prior to Mapp era)
State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 (1989) (Idaho held alcohol metabolism could create exigency justifying warrantless blood draw pre‑McNeely)
State v. Diaz, 144 Idaho 300 (2007) (held implied‑consent statute includes blood draws; did not address withdrawability of implied consent)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (rejected per se exigency rule based on alcohol dissipation; exigency assessed case‑by‑case)
Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App. 2012) (Texas court upheld warrantless involuntary blood draw under implied‑consent statute; later vacated and remanded by U.S. Supreme Court in light of McNeely)