State v. Hoerle
297 Neb. 840
Neb.2017Background
- Jared S. Hoerle was arrested after a motorcycle crash; officer observed signs of impairment and a preliminary breath test prompted a request for a chemical test.
- At the hospital a phlebotomist drew Hoerle’s blood after the officer read the postarrest chemical test advisement stating that refusal could be a separate crime; Hoerle submitted and did not resist.
- Hoerle was tried and convicted of DUI with a blood alcohol concentration of .195 and later found guilty of DUI over .15 with two prior convictions.
- The day after Hoerle’s conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, which held warrantless blood draws are not permissible as searches incident to arrest and raised questions about consent when drivers are told refusal is a crime.
- Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood draw should have been excluded under Birchfield; the district court denied the motion and Hoerle appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to warrantless blood draws performed before Birchfield and affirmed the denial of Hoerle’s new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether blood-test evidence obtained after a postarrest advisement that refusal is a crime must be excluded after Birchfield | Hoerle: Birchfield made warrantless blood draws inadmissible where consent was obtained after an incorrect criminal-refusal advisement, so his blood result should be suppressed and he deserves a new trial | State: Birchfield does not categorically void consent; courts must examine totality of circumstances, and the good faith exception applies to pre-Birchfield conduct | The court: Birchfield requires a totality-of-the-circumstances consent inquiry, but here the good faith exception applies to pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws, so evidence need not be suppressed |
| Whether consent given after an erroneous advisement that refusal is a crime is per se involuntary | Hoerle: Advisement coerced consent, so consent was involuntary | State: Advisement followed the statute; voluntariness is a fact question determined by totality of circumstances | The court: Birchfield did not create a categorical rule; voluntariness is determined by totality of circumstances (but court resolved case on good faith grounds) |
| Whether the exclusionary rule should apply to evidence obtained under a statute later found unconstitutional | Hoerle: Suppression is appropriate because the blood draw violated Fourth Amendment post-Birchfield | State: Exclusionary rule’s deterrent purpose is not served when officers reasonably rely on existing statutes | The court: Adopted good faith rationale—exclude suppression where officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on then-valid statute |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a new trial | Hoerle: Admission of blood evidence after Birchfield was legal error requiring a new trial | State: No abuse—good faith exception preserves admissibility | The court: No abuse of discretion; affirmed denial of new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (held warrantless blood draws are not permissible as searches incident to arrest and questioned consent when refusal is criminalized)
- 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)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (established the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (applied good faith rationale to statutes later found invalid)
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (declined to extend the exclusionary rule to certain noncriminal proceedings)