State v. Derek Michael Arrotta
157 Idaho 773
Idaho2014Background
- At ~1:54 a.m. on Dec. 8, 2012, Idaho State Police stopped Derek Arrotta for a traffic infraction; officer smelled alcohol and observed signs of impairment.
- Officer conducted field sobriety tests indicating impairment; Arrotta refused a breath test, was arrested, and taken to a hospital for a blood draw without a warrant or explicit written consent.
- Trooper testified he told Arrotta that if he refused the breath test a blood draw would be obtained; Arrotta testified he asked about refusing the blood draw but was told he could not refuse.
- Arrotta moved to suppress the blood-test results on Fourth and related constitutional grounds; the magistrate suppressed the blood-test results, holding statutory implied consent alone is insufficient and express consent is required.
- The district court affirmed, holding that statutory implied consent under I.C. § 18-8002 is revocable; the State appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court, holding as a matter of law that statutorily implied consent to evidentiary testing may be withdrawn by the suspect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory implied consent to evidentiary testing (including blood draws) is revocable | Implied consent cannot be revoked; once subject to statute, officer may obtain sample without suspect's consent | Suspect may withdraw statutorily implied consent; express consent required for warrantless blood draw | Statutory implied consent is revocable; suspect may withdraw consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (warrantless nonconsensual blood draws analyzed under Fourth Amendment; no per se exigency due to dissipation of alcohol)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (no per se requirement that officers inform suspects of right to refuse consent)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) (officers not always required to inform detainees they are free to go before consent deemed voluntary)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent assessed under totality of circumstances; no strict requirement of knowledge of right to refuse)
- State v. Wulff, 337 P.3d 575 (Idaho 2014) (Idaho precedent recognizing withdrawal of statutorily implied consent)