State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840

Hoerle was arrested after a motorcycle crash; a preliminary breath test indicated impairment and a hospital phlebotomist drew his blood at the officer’s request.
Parties stipulated at trial that Hoerle’s BAC was .195; a jury convicted him of DUI with enhancement for BAC over .15 and prior convictions.
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 voluntariness of consent where motorists are told refusal is a crime.
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood test was admitted in error because his consent was coerced by a postarrest advisement stating refusal was a separate crime.
At the new-trial hearing the arresting officer testified he read the statutory advisement, believed a warrant was not required, and obtained the blood while acting in accordance with statute; 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 admitting a warrantless blood test taken after a postarrest advisement that refusal is a crime requires a new trial under Birchfield	Postarrest advisement rendered consent involuntary; admission of the blood result violated Fourth Amendment and Birchfield so conviction not supported by admissible evidence	Officer reasonably relied on then-valid statute and advisement; good-faith exception bars suppression of pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws	Court held Birchfield does not categorically invalidate consent after an incorrect criminal-advisory; applied the good-faith exception and affirmed denial of new trial

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless blood tests incident to arrest unconstitutional; voluntariness of consent must be judged by totality of circumstances)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule and recognition of good-faith exception to warrant defects)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (officer’s reasonable mistake of law can justify police conduct under the Fourth Amendment)
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (exclusionary rule does not automatically apply in noncriminal proceedings)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good-faith reliance on statute can limit application of exclusionary rule)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (police enforce laws until declared unconstitutional; officers need not predict constitutionality)