State v. Hoerle
297 Neb. 840
Neb.2017Background
- Jared S. Hoerle crashed his motorcycle; an officer at the scene suspected intoxication and, after a preliminary breath test and hospital transport, a phlebotomist drew Hoerle’s blood at the officer’s request.
- Hoerle was charged with DUI (.15+ with two prior convictions). The parties stipulated the blood alcohol was .195 g/100 ml; a jury convicted him and the court found the enhancement.
- The day after Hoerle’s conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding warrantless blood draws incident to arrest are unconstitutional and casting doubt on consent where drivers are told refusal is a separate crime.
- Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood draw admitted at trial was unlawful under Birchfield because he was told refusal was a separate crime and thus his “consent” was coerced.
- The district court denied the new trial motion; on appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws and whether consent must be reexamined under the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Hoerle’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the warrantless blood draw admissible where Hoerle was told refusal was a crime? | Hoerle: advisory coerced consent; Birchfield renders the blood evidence inadmissible. | State: officer relied on statutory advisement and prevailing law; evidence should not be suppressed. | Court: Consent voluntariness must be judged by totality of circumstances, but not categorically invalid when advisement given. |
| Does Birchfield automatically suppress pre-decision blood draws obtained after an incorrect criminal-refusal advisement? | Hoerle: Birchfield created a new rule making such draws invalid. | State: Birchfield did not create a per se rule; courts must assess voluntariness. | Court: Birchfield did not impose a categorical bar; remand/reevaluation may be required in some cases. |
| Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws? | Hoerle: exclusionary rule should apply to deter Fourth Amendment violations. | State: officer objectively and reasonably relied on statute and practice; suppression would not deter. | Court: Good-faith exception applies to warrantless blood draws done before Birchfield; no deterrent benefit to suppression. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying a new trial? | Hoerle: yes, because evidence should have been suppressed under Birchfield. | State: no; evidence admissible under good-faith exception and voluntariness analysis. | Court: No abuse of discretion; affirmed based on good-faith exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless blood tests incident to arrest unconstitutional; voluntariness of consent requires totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule and creation of the good-faith exception for warrant reliance)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (reasonable mistake of law can render police conduct objectively reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (exclusionary rule need not apply in noncriminal proceedings)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (application of good-faith exception when officer relies on a statute later held invalid)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (officers are expected to enforce statutes until declared unconstitutional; exclusionary rule not intended to police legislative judgment)