State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840

Jared S. Hoerle was arrested after a motorcycle crash; a preliminary breath test suggested impairment and an officer arranged a hospital blood draw without a warrant.
Hoerle was charged with DUI (BAC .15+ with two prior convictions); trial evidence included a stipulated blood alcohol result of .195.
A jury convicted Hoerle; the day after conviction the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding warrantless blood draws are not permissible as searches incident to arrest.
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood test was unlawfully admitted in light of Birchfield and that his consent was coerced by an advisory that refusal was a separate crime.
The district court denied the motion; on appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws and whether consent should be re-evaluated.

Issue	Hoerle's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether post-conviction Birchfield error required a new trial because blood was drawn without a warrant	Hoerle: Birchfield renders warrantless blood evidence inadmissible; conviction rests on tainted evidence	State: Blood draw occurred before Birchfield and officers reasonably relied on existing law/statute; exclusion not warranted	Court: No abuse of discretion; good faith exception applies to pre-Birchfield draws
Whether consent given after an advisory that refusal is a crime was voluntary	Hoerle: Advisory coerced consent; consent involuntary	State: Officer followed statutory advisory and Hoerle cooperated; voluntariness must be judged by totality	Court: Birchfield does not categorically invalidate such consent; voluntariness is a totality-of-circumstances inquiry (no suppression here because of good faith)
Whether the exclusionary rule should bar evidence obtained by officers reasonably relying on statute or practice later held unconstitutional	Hoerle: Exclusionary rule should apply despite officer reliance	State: Good faith exception prevents suppression when officer reasonably relied on law not clearly unconstitutional	Court: Applied good faith exception — suppression would not deter officers enforcing statute not yet declared unconstitutional

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (establishes good faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (exclusionary rule need not extend to noncriminal proceedings)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (officer’s reasonable reliance on statute may negate need for exclusionary remedy)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (officers enforce laws until declared unconstitutional; cannot expect officers to judge constitutionality)