State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840

Jared S. Hoerle was arrested after a motorcycle wreck; a preliminary breath test and officer observations suggested impairment.
At the hospital, a phlebotomist drew Hoerle’s blood after the arresting officer read the postarrest chemical test advisory telling Hoerle that refusal could be a separate crime; no warrant was obtained.
At trial the parties stipulated the blood ethanol concentration was .195; a jury convicted Hoerle of DUI with enhancement for BAC > .15 and prior convictions.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota the day after Hoerle’s conviction, holding warrantless blood draws incident to arrest are unconstitutional and casting doubt on consent given after advisories that refusal is criminal.
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing admission of the warrantless blood test (given after an advisory stating refusal is a crime) was unconstitutional under Birchfield; the district court denied the motion.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws where an officer reasonably relied on existing statute and advisory.

Issue	Hoerle's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether admission of warrantless blood test required new trial under Birchfield	Blood drawn after advisory that refusal is a crime was involuntary; Birchfield made admission unconstitutional	Blood was used consistent with law then in effect; admissibility should be evaluated under good-faith principles	Denied: no new trial because good-faith exception applies
Whether consent given after being told refusal is criminal is per se involuntary	Consent coerced by criminal-refusal threat	Consent voluntariness must be judged under totality of circumstances; not categorically invalid	Court: Not categorical; voluntariness judged by totality of circumstances
Whether exclusionary rule should bar evidence obtained by objectively reasonable reliance on statute	Exclusion appropriate because Fourth Amendment violation occurred	Exclusion unwarranted because officer reasonably relied on statute not yet declared unconstitutional (good-faith exception)	Court: Good-faith exception applies to pre-Birchfield blood draws
Whether suppression would serve deterrent purpose	Suppression necessary to vindicate Fourth Amendment	Suppression would not deter officers who acted pursuant to statute not clearly unconstitutional	Court: Suppression would not advance deterrence; decline to apply exclusionary rule

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless blood draws incident to arrest unconstitutional; consent questioned when refusal is criminalized)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishes good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrant reliance)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can render a stop reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1998) (exclusionary rule need not apply in noncriminal proceedings where deterrent benefits are lacking)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (police acting in objective, reasonable reliance on a statute may invoke a good-faith defense to suppression)