State v. Fetch, 2014 ND 195

Trooper Arndt stopped Jeffrey Fetch for speeding, observed signs of intoxication, and a preliminary breath test read .138.
Fetch was arrested, handcuffed, placed in the patrol car, and read the implied‑consent advisory informing him refusal could be a crime and result in license suspension.
Fetch initially refused blood testing because of a phobia of needles, but repeatedly questioned Arndt about consequences and eventually, according to officers and the court, consented and had blood drawn at the detention center (result .17 BAC).
At the suppression hearing, Fetch testified he never wanted the blood draw and felt he had no real choice after being told refusal was a crime; Arndt testified Fetch ultimately agreed to the test.
The district court found Fetch voluntarily consented and denied suppression; Fetch entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fetch voluntarily consented to a warrantless blood draw	State: Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; implied‑consent advisory does not coerce consent	Fetch: Advisory and threat of criminal/administrative penalties rendered consent involuntary and coerced	Voluntary consent found; suppression denied
Whether a warrant was required for the blood draw absent consent	State: Consent is an exception to the warrant requirement	Fetch: Warrant required because consent was not voluntary; McNeely limits exigency exception	Warrant unnecessary because valid voluntary consent was given

State v. Smith, 849 N.W.2d 599 (N.D. 2014) (consent question evaluated under totality of circumstances; reading implied‑consent advisory does not automatically render consent involuntary)
State v. McCoy, 848 N.W.2d 659 (N.D. 2014) (consent is an exception to warrant requirement for blood tests)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (metabolization of alcohol not per se exigency to justify warrantless nonconsensual blood draw)
Maisey v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 775 N.W.2d 200 (N.D. 2009) (a later consent can cure a prior refusal to submit to chemical testing)
Grosgebauer v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 747 N.W.2d 510 (N.D. 2008) (same principle that changed mind may validate subsequent consent)
Lund v. Hjelle, 224 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 1974) (earlier recognition that a refusal can be cured by later consent)
State v. Zink, 791 N.W.2d 161 (N.D. 2010) (credibility determinations at suppression hearings are for the district court)