State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840

Jared S. Hoerle was arrested after a motorcycle crash; a preliminary breath test suggested impairment and an officer requested a blood draw at a hospital. A phlebotomist collected Hoerle’s blood after the officer read a postarrest chemical-test advisory that said refusal could be a separate crime.
The parties stipulated the blood alcohol concentration was .195; a jury convicted Hoerle of DUI with a .15+ enhancement and the court found two prior convictions for sentencing.
The day after the conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding warrantless blood draws are not permissible as searches incident to arrest and casting doubt on consent given after a criminal-refusal advisory.
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing the warrantless blood test admitted at trial was error under Birchfield and that his consent was coerced by the incorrect advisory. The district court overruled the motion.
On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the principal question became whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to warrantless blood draws taken before Birchfield.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consent to the blood draw was involuntary under Birchfield because officer advised refusal was a separate crime	Hoerle: consent was coerced by the criminal-refusal advisement and thus involuntary, requiring suppression/new trial	State: voluntariness must be judged under the totality of circumstances and Birchfield did not categorically invalidate such consent	Court: voluntariness is a totality-of-the-circumstances question; Birchfield does not establish a per se rule that such advisements render consent invalid
Whether evidence from a pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draw must be excluded under the exclusionary rule	Hoerle: Birchfield announced a new rule making the draw unconstitutional and evidence inadmissible	State: officer reasonably relied on then-valid statute and advisory; good-faith exception should apply to pre-Birchfield draws	Court: good-faith exception applies where officers objectively and reasonably rely on a statute not clearly unconstitutional at the time; exclusion would not serve deterrence purposes
Whether district court abused its discretion by denying a motion for new trial	Hoerle: denial was abuse because key evidence should have been suppressed under Birchfield	State: no abuse because good-faith exception preserves admissibility and consent was not per se involuntary	Court: no abuse of discretion; motion properly overruled because good-faith exception applies to pre-Birchfield blood draws

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless breath tests allowed incident to arrest; warrantless blood tests not allowed; voluntariness of consent evaluated under totality of circumstances)
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)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishing the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1998) (exclusionary rule generally limited to criminal trials; not required in other proceedings)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (permitting good-faith reliance on statute later found invalid)