State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840

Jared S. Hoerle was involved in a motorcycle wreck; officers suspected impairment and a preliminary breath test prompted a request for a chemical test. A hospital phlebotomist drew Hoerle’s blood at the officer’s request.
Hoerle’s blood test later showed a BAC of .195; he was tried and convicted of DUI (.15+ with two prior convictions).
The day after conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding warrantless blood draws are not permissible as a search incident to arrest (but warrantless breath tests may be).
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood test was unconstitutional under Birchfield and that his consent (after being advised refusal was a separate crime) was coerced; the district court denied the motion.
On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the State argued the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies because the officer relied on the statutory advisement and believed a warrant was not required before Birchfield.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consent to the blood draw was voluntary after advisement that refusal is a separate crime	Hoerle: advisement coerced consent; Birchfield retroactively invalidates admitting the blood result	State: voluntariness must be judged under totality; officer properly relied on statute pre-Birchfield	Court: voluntariness is a totality question; but resolved appeal on good faith grounds rather than making categorical rule
Whether evidence from a pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draw must be suppressed	Hoerle: Birchfield requires suppression of the blood-result evidence	State: good faith exception applies because officer reasonably relied on statute and practice before Birchfield	Court: good faith exception applies to warrantless blood draws done before Birchfield; no suppression
Whether the exclusionary rule should deter officers who reasonably relied on statute	Hoerle: suppression is appropriate to vindicate Fourth Amendment rights	State: suppression would not deter objectively reasonable reliance on a statute not clearly unconstitutional	Court: exclusionary rule’s deterrent purpose not served here; objectively reasonable reliance justifies good faith exception
Whether denial of the new-trial motion was an abuse of discretion	Hoerle: admitting the blood test was legal error requiring new trial	State: district court correctly denied motion based on applicable law (good faith exception)	Court: no abuse of discretion; affirmed

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless blood tests are not permissible as searches incident to arrest; voluntariness of consent requires totality review)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 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 (U.S. 1998) (the exclusionary rule need not apply in noncriminal proceedings where deterrent benefits are lacking)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishing the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (good faith reliance on a statute can preclude application of the exclusionary rule)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1979) (police enforce statutes until declared unconstitutional; officers not expected to second-guess statutes’ constitutionality)