State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840

Jared S. Hoerle crashed his motorcycle; officer observed signs of impairment and a preliminary breath test indicated intoxication.
Hoerle was taken to a hospital for medical evaluation; at the officer’s request a phlebotomist drew Hoerle’s blood after the officer read the postarrest chemical test advisement stating refusal could be a separate crime.
At trial the parties stipulated to a blood-alcohol result of .195; a jury convicted Hoerle of DUI and a statutory enhancement for .15+ with prior convictions.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota the day after Hoerle’s conviction, holding warrantless blood draws incident to arrest are not permitted and questioning consent when refusal is criminalized.
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood draw (and the advisement threatening criminal penalty) rendered his consent involuntary under Birchfield; the district court denied the motion.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether Birchfield required suppression or whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to pre‑Birchfield warrantless blood draws.

Issue	Hoerle’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether consent to Hoerle’s blood draw was involuntary under Birchfield	Consent was coerced because officer advised refusal was a separate crime, so blood evidence is inadmissible	Even if advisory was inaccurate, consent may be evaluated under totality; additionally, evidence should not be suppressed because officers reasonably relied on the statute	Court: voluntariness is a totality‑of‑circumstances question (Birchfield does not categorically invalidate such consent); but disposition resolved on good‑faith grounds
Whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of pre‑Birchfield blood draws where officers relied on statutory advisories	Suppression required because blood draws without warrants violate Fourth Amendment per Birchfield	Good‑faith exception applies where officers objectively and reasonably relied on statute not clearly unconstitutional at the time	Court: good‑faith exception applies to warrantless blood draws conducted before Birchfield; suppression not warranted
Whether district court abused its discretion by denying motion for new trial	The new constitutional rule (Birchfield) undermines admissible evidence and requires new trial	Denial appropriate because evidence need not be suppressed under the good‑faith exception	Court: no abuse of discretion; affirmed

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless breath permissible incident to arrest; warrantless blood not permissible; voluntariness of consent requires totality analysis)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishing the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can make police conduct objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (the exclusionary rule need not be applied in noncriminal proceedings)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (applying good‑faith rationale where officers relied on a statute later held invalid)
State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 (Neb. 2014) (Nebraska precedent on application of good‑faith/exclusionary rule)