475 P.3d 1248
Kan.2020Background:
- April 2015: Heim arrested after a vehicle crash, given implied-consent advisories, requested a blood test; officers did not obtain a warrant and the blood drawn within three hours showed a BAC of .19.
- Heim moved to suppress the blood-test evidence as unconstitutional under Birchfield, Ryce, and Nece; the district court denied suppression and convicted on stipulated facts.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the State could raise the good-faith exception on appeal and that the exception applied because the arresting officer reasonably relied on the statute.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review; after deciding State v. Perkins (applying the good-faith exception to breath tests obtained under the unconstitutional implied-consent statute), the court asked parties why Perkins should not control.
- Holding: Applying Perkins, the Kansas Supreme Court held the Leon/Krull good-faith exception applies here and the blood-test results were admissible despite the later ruling that K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 8-1025 was unconstitutional.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the good-faith exception bar suppression of a warrantless blood test obtained under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 8-1025 later declared unconstitutional? | Heim: blood draw was an unconstitutional warrantless search under Birchfield/Ryce/Nece; evidence must be suppressed. | State: officer reasonably relied on existing statute and precedent; exclusion would not further deterrence—good-faith exception applies. | Court applied Perkins and held the good-faith exception applies; blood-test evidence admissible. |
| Should this Court overrule Perkins (good-faith exception for breath tests) and decline to apply it to this case? | Heim: Perkins was wrongly decided and should be overturned. | State: Perkins follows Leon/Krull/Daniel and stare decisis; no persuasive change to justify overruling. | Court declined to revisit Perkins and adhered to precedent. |
| Could the State raise the good-faith exception for the first time on appeal? | Heim: State forfeited the argument by not raising it earlier. | Court of Appeals: Birchfield postdated the arrest and the good-faith theory was newly relevant; question is legal. | Supreme Court: Heim did not seek review of the Court of Appeals' procedural ruling and thus waived that issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764 (Kan. 2019) (applied good-faith exception to breath tests obtained under unconstitutional implied-consent statute)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless breath tests permissible as search incident to arrest; blood tests are more intrusive)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (officer's objectively reasonable, good-faith reliance on a warrant protects evidence from exclusion)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1991) (noted for prompt judicial determination requirement) (contextual: Fourth Amendment procedure)
- United States v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (extended Leon to officer reliance on a statute later found unconstitutional)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draw is a search; exigent-circumstances analysis may justify warrantless blood draws)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (exigent-circumstances inquiry for nonconsensual blood draws must be case-specific)
- State v. Ryce, 306 Kan. 682 (Kan. 2017) (reaffirmed earlier holdings about implied consent and the distinction after Birchfield)
- State v. Nece, 306 Kan. 679 (Kan. 2017) (same)