State v. Hawkins, 2017 ND 172

On Jan 30, 2016 an officer stopped John Hawkins for erratic driving, conducted field sobriety tests, and concluded he was impaired.
Officer read implied consent advisory and asked for an on-site breath test; Hawkins refused the on-site screening and was arrested, handcuffed, and placed in the patrol car.
While the officer was away Hawkins told himself he would take a blood test; after the officer returned and began reading Miranda and the implied consent advisory a second time, Hawkins said he would take a blood test and the officer recorded Hawkins’ response as consenting.
Hawkins’ blood was drawn at a hospital and he was charged with DUI; he moved to suppress the blood-test results arguing consent was involuntary and the officer failed to comply with statutory advisory requirements.
The district court held hearings (and reviewed dash-cam/in-car video), found Hawkins’ consent was not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances (noting arrest after initial refusal and custodial setting), and suppressed the blood-test results; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hawkins voluntarily consented to blood test (warrant exception)	Consent was voluntary because Hawkins twice stated he would take the blood test while alone in the squad car and before the advisory was completed	Consent was involuntary because Hawkins initially refused testing, was immediately arrested and handcuffed, and only later acquiesced while in custody	Consent was not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances; suppression affirmed
Whether any defects in the implied-consent advisory require suppression	State argued consent valid despite advisory issues; advisory delivery not determinative here	Hawkins argued statutory advisory requirements were not satisfied, undermining consent	Court declined to decide advisory accuracy issue because voluntariness disposition was dispositive

State v. Boehm, 849 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 2014) (warrantless blood tests are searches; outlines appealability for suppression orders)
State v. Schmidt, 885 N.W.2d 65 (N.D. 2016) (consent must be voluntary under totality of circumstances; State bears burden)
State v. Torkelsen, 752 N.W.2d 640 (N.D. 2008) (warrantless searches unreasonable unless an exception applies; factors for voluntariness)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (distinguishes breath and blood testing rules under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments)
State v. Lange, 255 N.W.2d 59 (N.D. 1977) (custody does not automatically negate voluntariness of consent)