State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840

Jared S. Hoerle crashed his motorcycle; officers at the scene suspected impairment and a preliminary breath test led to a post-arrest request for a chemical test.
Hoerle was taken to a hospital where a phlebotomist drew blood after the arresting officer read a postarrest chemical test advisement stating refusal could be a separate crime; Hoerle cooperated and did not resist.
At trial the parties stipulated the blood alcohol concentration was .195 g/100 ml; a jury found Hoerle guilty of DUI and that his BAC exceeded .15, and the court imposed enhanced penalties based on prior convictions.
The day after Hoerle’s conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, which held warrantless blood draws incident to arrest are not permitted and raised questions about consent when a motorist is told refusal is a crime.
Hoerle moved for a new trial arguing admission of the warrantless blood-test result was error under Birchfield; the district court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Birchfield required suppression of blood-test evidence obtained after an advisement that refusal was a crime	Hoerle: post-advisement consent was coerced by threat of criminal penalty, so the blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment and requires a new trial	State: consent may be evaluated under the totality of circumstances; alternatively, evidence should be admissible because officers relied on existing statute and advisement	The court held Birchfield does not categorically invalidate consent given after an incorrect criminal-advisory; voluntariness is a totality-of-the-circumstances question
Whether the exclusionary rule bars pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draws when officers acted on an existing statute/advisement	Hoerle: exclusionary rule should apply to remedy the constitutional violation	State: good faith exception applies because officer objectively and reasonably relied on the statute/advisement that had not been declared unconstitutional	The court applied the good faith exception and declined to suppress the pre-Birchfield blood-test evidence; no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless blood tests incident to arrest unlawful; voluntariness of consent evaluated under totality of circumstances)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishing the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (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 (1998) (exclusionary rule not required in noncriminal proceedings)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good faith reliance on statute can preclude suppression)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (police enforce statutes until declared unconstitutional)