State v. Jesse Carl Riendeau
355 P.3d 1282
Idaho2015Background
- In March 2013 Jesse Riendeau was arrested for DUI; two breath tests showed .175 and .181 BAC, above the .08 legal limit.
- Riendeau moved to suppress the breath-test results, arguing (1) the Idaho State Police 2013 SOPs downgraded a mandatory 15‑minute observation from “must” to “should,” eliminating a standard to detect mouth alcohol and undermining reliability, and (2) his consent was coerced by threats on the advisory form (a $250 civil penalty and one‑year license suspension) and by a false statement that he was legally required to submit to testing.
- The magistrate denied the suppression motion and motion in limine after hearing expert testimony (the SOP drafter) and the arresting officer, who testified the officer followed SOPs and the instrument was verified and produced correlated results within .020.
- Riendeau entered a conditional guilty plea preserving appellate review of those pretrial rulings; the district court affirmed the magistrate, and the Idaho Supreme Court granted review.
- The Court affirmed: it upheld the admissibility of the breath-test results based on (a) the evidentiary record showing procedural compliance and objective safeguards that address mouth alcohol; and (b) that the breath test did not constitute an unreasonable search under U.S. or Idaho constitutions (so consent challenge failed).
Issues
| Issue | Riendeau's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changing “must” to “should” in 2013 SOPs rendered breath tests unreliable and inadmissible | The change removed a mandatory 15‑minute observation to detect mouth alcohol, leaving no enforceable standards to assure accuracy | Objective safeguards (instrumental correlation of two samples within .020 and performance verification) preserve reliability even if observation is discretionary | Court upheld admissibility — magistrate’s factual finding that SOPs and testing were reliable was not reversed; Haynes decision permitting expert proof of conformity also supports admissibility |
| Whether the 2013 SOPs were void for failure to be adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) | SOPs invalid because they weren’t adopted as formal rules under the APA | Even if SOPs were not adopted under APA, expert and operator testimony can establish conformity with applicable testing procedures and reliability | Court affirmed denial of motion in limine on alternative ground: testimony showed the test was administered in conformity with applicable procedures (citing Haynes) |
| Whether Riendeau’s consent to the breath test was invalid because advisory form threatened civil penalty and license suspension and falsely stated testing was required by law | Advisory form coerced consent (threat of sanctions) and misled by saying test was legally required; analogous to Bumper v. North Carolina where false claim of a warrant vitiated consent | The breath test is not an unreasonable search; legal consequences for refusal do not automatically invalidate consent; McNeely plurality and Neville discussion do not control outcome here | Court held consent challenge fails because breath test was not an unreasonable search under the U.S. or Idaho Constitutions; thus results admissible. Justice W. Jones concurred but would rest on voluntary consent exception rather than general reasonableness analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haynes, 159 Idaho 36, 355 P.3d 1266 (Idaho 2015) (SOPs were not adopted under APA but expert testimony can establish conformity with applicable procedures)
- State v. Besaw, 155 Idaho 134, 306 P.3d 219 (Ct. App. 2013) (SOPs are not necessarily incapable of yielding accurate tests)
- Asarco Inc. v. State, 138 Idaho 719, 69 P.3d 139 (Idaho 2003) (procedural rules and APA adoption issues)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (search‑warrant/exception analysis in blood‑draw cases; plurality discussion of consequences for refusal)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983) (use of refusal and license revocation in implied‑consent regimes)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968) (consent vitiated when induced by an assertion of lawful authority such as a warrant)