State v. Hoerle, 901 N.W.2d 327

Jared S. Hoerle crashed his motorcycle; an officer suspected DUI, administered a preliminary breath test, and transported Hoerle to a hospital where a phlebotomist drew blood at the officer’s request.
Hoerle was charged with DUI (>.15 with two priors); trial evidence included a stipulated blood-alcohol concentration of .195.
The day after Hoerle’s conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding warrantless blood draws are not permissible as searches incident to arrest and raising questions about consent when drivers are told refusal is a crime.
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood draw was unconstitutional under Birchfield because he was told refusal was a separate crime; the district court denied the motion.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court considered (1) whether Birchfield categorically invalidates consent after an incorrect criminal-refusal advisement, and (2) whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws.

Issue	Hoerle's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether consent to blood draw given after being told refusal is a crime is categorically involuntary under Birchfield	Consent was coerced by statutory admonition; evidence should be excluded	Birchfield does not categorically invalidate such consent; voluntariness depends on totality of circumstances	Birchfield does not create a categorical rule; voluntariness assessed by totality of circumstances
Whether the good-faith exception bars suppression of pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws	Exclusionary rule should apply because the blood draw violated Fourth Amendment as clarified by Birchfield	Officer reasonably relied on then-valid statute and advisement; exclusion would have no deterrent effect	Good-faith exception applies to warrantless blood draws conducted before Birchfield; evidence need not be suppressed
Whether denial of Hoerle’s motion for new trial was an abuse of discretion	Admission of blood-alcohol evidence after Birchfield rendered conviction unsustainable; new trial required	Trial court properly denied motion because good-faith exception preserves admission of blood test	No abuse of discretion; denial of new trial affirmed

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless blood tests not permitted as searches incident to arrest; consent coerced if conditioned on criminal penalty)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can make conduct objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (the exclusionary rule is not required in noncriminal proceedings when deterrence is outweighed by costs)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (articulating the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (applying good-faith rationale to reliance on an apparently valid statute)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (police enforce statutes until declared unconstitutional; officers need not judge constitutionality)