State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840

Background

Jared S. Hoerle crashed his motorcycle; officer at scene observed signs of impairment and Hoerle admitted drinking. A preliminary breath test led the officer to request a chemical test.
At the hospital, after being read the postarrest chemical test advisement (which stated refusal could be a separate crime), Hoerle cooperatively submitted to a blood draw; no warrant was obtained.
At trial the parties stipulated the blood alcohol concentration was .195; a jury convicted Hoerle of DUI (enhanced for .15+ and two priors).
The day after conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding warrantless blood draws incident to arrest are unconstitutional and questioning consent when an accused is told refusal is a crime.
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood evidence was inadmissible under Birchfield; the district court denied the motion.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether Birchfield rendered suppression appropriate or whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule foreclosed suppression of pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the admission of a warrantless blood test after advisement that refusal is a crime required a new trial under Birchfield	Hoerle: Birchfield makes warrantless blood draws invalid and consent given after a criminal-refusal advisement is presumptively involuntary; evidence should be excluded	State: Birchfield does not automatically require suppression; voluntariness is fact-specific and the good-faith exception may apply to pre-Birchfield conduct	Court: Voluntariness is judged by totality of circumstances, but here suppression was unnecessary because the good-faith exception applies to pre-Birchfield blood draws
Whether consent given after an incorrect criminal-refusal advisory is categorically involuntary	Hoerle: advisory coerced consent; categorical rule should apply	State: No categorical rule; court must assess totality of circumstances	Court: No categorical rule; voluntariness depends on totality of circumstances
Whether the exclusionary rule should be applied to evidence obtained under an objectively reasonable reliance on existing statute/advisory	Hoerle: exclusion still appropriate despite officer reliance	State: Officer reasonably relied on statute and form in effect at the time; suppression would not deter misconduct	Court: Good-faith exception applies where officer reasonably relied on statutory advisory not yet adjudicated unconstitutional; suppression would not further deterrence
Standard of review for new-trial motion based on legal question of suppression/good faith	Hoerle: district court abused discretion in denying new trial	State: district court acted within discretion; appellate review of legal questions (good-faith exception) is de novo	Court: New-trial motions reviewed for abuse of discretion; application of good-faith exception is legal and reviewed de novo; no abuse of discretion here

Key Cases Cited

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless breath tests allowed incident to arrest, warrantless blood tests not; consent voluntariness requires totality review)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable officer reliance on a warrant)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (officer’s reasonable mistake of law can negate a Fourth Amendment violation)
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (exclusionary rule need not apply in noncriminal proceedings where deterrence is lacking)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good-faith exception applies where officers reasonably rely on statute later found invalid)
State v. Olbricht, 294 Neb. 974 (2016) (motion for new trial addressed to trial court discretion; legal issues reviewed independently)