State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840

Jared S. Hoerle was involved in a motorcycle wreck; officers at the scene suspected impairment and a preliminary breath test led to an arrest and a requested blood draw at a hospital.
A phlebotomist drew Hoerle’s blood after the officer read the postarrest chemical test advisement, which stated refusal "is a separate crime for which you may be charged."
Trial proceeded; parties stipulated the blood alcohol concentration was .195 and a jury convicted Hoerle of DUI (.15+), with sentence enhancement for prior convictions.
The day after conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding warrantless blood tests are not permissible as searches incident to arrest and raising questions about consent when drivers are told refusal is a criminal offense.
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood test was unconstitutional under Birchfield; the district court denied the motion.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the exclusionary rule should bar use of the pre-Birchfield blood test, focusing on the good faith exception to suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Birchfield invalidates admission of Hoerle’s warrantless blood test	Hoerle: Birchfield makes warrantless blood draws inadmissible and consent here was coerced by the criminal-refusal advisement	State: Birchfield does not automatically invalidate pre-decision blood draws; voluntariness is fact-specific	Court: Birchfield did not categorically invalidate consent given after incorrect criminal-refusal advisement; voluntariness depends on totality of circumstances
Whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of pre-Birchfield blood evidence	Hoerle: Evidence obtained in violation of Birchfield should be excluded	State: Good faith exception should apply because officers reasonably relied on statute and advisement before Birchfield	Court: Good faith exception applies to warrantless blood draws conducted before Birchfield; suppression would not advance deterrence
Whether officer’s misstatement of law vitiated consent	Hoerle: Advisement that refusal is a crime coerced consent	State: Officer acted pursuant to statutory advisement and reasonably relied on the law	Court: Misstatement does not automatically void consent; voluntariness is a totality-of-circumstances inquiry, but here good faith reliance means evidence stands

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless blood tests not permitted as searches incident to arrest; consent voluntariness requires totality review)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishes good faith exception to exclusionary rule for reasonable reliance on a warrant)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can negate a Fourth Amendment violation)
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1998) (exclusionary rule not required in noncriminal proceedings when deterrent benefits are lacking)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (good faith reliance on statute can bar suppression)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1979) (police may enforce statutes until declared unconstitutional)