State v. Dopirak
1701017237
Del. Super. Ct.Jul 24, 2017Background
- On Jan. 28, 2017 Patrolman Wilks stopped Joseph R. Dopirak after observing him drive southbound in the northbound lanes of Route 13 (divided highway).
- Officer detected a strong odor of alcohol; Dopirak performed pre-exit and NHTSA field sobriety tests "unsatisfactorily."
- A Portable Breath Test (PBT) registered .165 BAC; Dopirak refused an intoxilyzer breath sample and refused blood at the station.
- The State obtained a magistrate-issued warrant to seize Dopirak’s blood; Dopirak moved to suppress the blood seizure and testing.
- Dopirak argued the affidavit of probable cause was conclusory (insufficient foundation for PBT and unspecified field tests) and that a second warrant was required to test the blood.
- The Superior Court denied the suppression motion, finding the affidavit—viewed with required deference—established probable cause under the totality of the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Dopirak's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to issue blood-draw warrant | Affidavit (wrong-way driving, strong odor, failed NHTSA tests, PBT .165, refusal to test) sufficed under totality of circumstances | Affidavit too conclusory; facts (traffic violation, odor) alone insufficient per Lefebvre | Warrant valid; magistrate reasonably found probable cause given egregious driving, odor, refusal, and other facts |
| Weight of PBT result in warrant review | PBT .165 can be given some weight in warrant context despite lacking detailed foundation | PBT should be ignored absent foundational recitals (calibration, training, observation period) | PBT may be assigned some weight in a warrant review; lack of foundation affects weight but does not eliminate it |
| Weight of NHTSA/field sobriety statements | Officer’s recital that NHTSA tests were performed unsatisfactorily may be credited on deferential warrant review | Unspecified “field sobriety tests” are conclusory and should be disregarded (Cajthaml) | Magistrate could infer failed NHTSA tests; such recitations are entitled to weight in totality analysis |
| Need for separate warrant to test seized blood | The warrant authorized a search of blood to determine DUI; testing is within that search | Testing required a second warrant because it is an additional intrusion | No second warrant required; testing of lawfully seized blood falls within the search authorized by the warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- Flonnery v. State, 109 A.3d 1060 (Del. 2015) (warrant required for blood draw absent exigency or consent)
- State v. Holden, 60 A.3d 1110 (Del. 2013) (deference and less-rigorous standards for affidavit review; avoid hypertechnical scrutiny)
- Lefebvre v. State, 19 A.3d 287 (Del. 2011) (traffic violation plus odor alone do not automatically establish probable cause)
- Miller v. State, 4 A.3d 371 (Del. 2010) (PBT admission at suppression hearings requires foundational proof of calibration and training)
- Rybicki v. State, 119 A.3d 663 (Del. 2015) (totality of circumstances can support warrant where automobile accident, odor, and refusals suggested impairment)
- Sisson v. State, 883 A.2d 868 (Del. Super. Ct.) (burden on defendant to show warrant invalid in suppression challenge)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause; deference to magistrate)