State v. Havatone
246 Ariz. 573
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- In Sept. 2012 Havatone caused a cross‑traffic collision and was medevaced to a Nevada hospital unconscious; Arizona officer Perea suspected DUI and requested Nevada assistance to collect blood.
- A Nevada Highway Patrol officer (Reinmuth) obtained a warrantless blood sample from Havatone at the Nevada hospital; the sample later tested 0.21% BAC.
- Arizona charged Havatone with aggravated DUI, aggravated assault, endangerment, and misdemeanor assaults; Havatone moved to suppress the warrantless blood draw.
- The superior court denied suppression, finding the blood draw lawful under Nevada law and, alternatively, that the good‑faith exception applied.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals initially affirmed; the Arizona Supreme Court later held Arizona’s “unconscious clause” unconstitutional and remanded for determination whether Nevada law or Arizona law governs and whether the good‑faith exception applies.
- On remand the superior court applied Nevada law, found Reinmuth acted lawfully under Nevada precedent/policy at the time, applied the good‑faith exception, and refused to suppress; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Havatone's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for exclusionary rule (which state’s law governs admissibility of evidence seized in another state) | Arizona law should control; Arizona’s exclusionary rule should apply | Situs law (Nevada) should apply because the seizure occurred in Nevada and was lawful there | Court applied exclusionary‑rule analysis and held Nevada (situs) law governs the admissibility of the blood draw |
| Validity of warrantless blood draw from unconscious suspect | Warrantless blood draw violated Fourth Amendment; implied‑consent statute (Arizona) unconstitutional; evidence should be suppressed | Blood draw was lawful under Nevada law and NHP protocol in effect at the time | Because the draw lawfully complied with Nevada law at the time, seizure was lawful under situs law and not subject to suppression on that basis |
| Applicability of good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule | Good‑faith exception does not apply (both Arizona and Nevada) | Good‑faith exception applies because officer objectively relied on Nevada statute/case law and departmental policy | Good‑faith exception applies: officer reasonably relied on Nevada law/precedent and suppression would not deter misconduct |
| Remedy if Arizona law applied | Suppression required, convictions vacated | Even if Arizona law invalidated the statute, exclusion unnecessary because officer acted in good faith under Nevada law | Court did not reach suppression under Arizona law because it applied Nevada law; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (exigency cannot be presumed from natural dissipation of alcohol)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule where officers reasonably rely on a warrant)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule only where suppression will deter deliberate, reckless, or systemic negligence)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applied to states via Fourteenth Amendment)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (federal exclusionary rule origins)
- Galvan v. State, 98 Nev. 550, 655 P.2d 155 (Nev. 1982) (Nevada court upholding warrantless blood draw based on exigent dissipation pre‑McNeely)
- Byars v. State, 130 Nev. 848, 336 P.3d 939 (Nev. 2014) (Nevada Supreme Court invalidated certain implied‑consent provisions post‑McNeely but applied good‑faith reliance to preserve evidence)
- State v. Havatone, 241 Ariz. 506, 389 P.3d 1251 (2017) (Arizona Supreme Court: Arizona’s unconscious‑consent clause unconstitutional; remanded to determine applicable law and good‑faith application)