State v. Kirk Murray Charlson, 160 Idaho 610

On June 11, 2012, Kirk Murray Charlson crashed his motorcycle; deputy observed alcohol odor, an expired registration/insurance, four empty beer cans, and Charlson admitted consuming two beers.
At the scene Charlson blew 0.117 on an evidentiary breath test but was unable or unwilling to give a second breath sample; deputy requested a blood draw at the hospital.
Charlson was airlifted to St. Luke’s Hospital where a phlebotomist drew blood without a warrant; lab results showed BAC 0.102.
Charlson, a two-time prior DUI offender, was charged with felony DUI (third within ten years) and moved to suppress the warrantless blood draw as violating the Fourth Amendment.
The district court denied suppression relying on Idaho’s implied consent statute (and pre-Wulff precedent), finding probable cause and that consent exception applied; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, analyzing the voluntariness of implied consent under controlling Idaho precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless blood draw was lawful under the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment	State: Idaho’s implied consent statute created voluntary initial consent by driving and consent continued; State met burden to show consent was voluntary	Charlson: McNeely and later Idaho cases require express or continuous voluntary consent; absence of evidence proving continuous consent means suppression required	Held: Consent exception applied—Charlson gave implied consent by driving and did not withdraw it; totality of circumstances shows consent was voluntary, so suppression denied

Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency for warrantless blood draw)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (breath tests can be search incident to arrest; blood tests cannot; states may not criminalize refusal to submit to blood test)
State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 (Idaho 2014) (implied consent cannot be treated as per se authority for forced warrantless blood draws; consent must be voluntary and continuing)
State v. Halseth, 157 Idaho 643 (Idaho 2014) (implied consent is withdrawn when a motorist objects; warrantless blood draw invalid if driver refuses)
State v. Arrotta, 157 Idaho 773 (Idaho 2014) (implied consent may be withdrawn; refusal negates statutory implied consent to evidentiary testing)
State v. Eversole, 160 Idaho 239 (Idaho 2016) (refusal to submit to offered test withdraws implied consent to evidentiary testing generally)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances; no requirement to inform of right to refuse)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood tests are searches under the Fourth Amendment)