State v. LeCLERCQ
149 Idaho 905
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Stopped for speeding on Hwy 75 in Blaine County at ~11:18 p.m.
- LeClercq crossed a double yellow line and stopped only after the siren was activated; smelled of alcohol; disoriented; glassy, bloodshot eyes; slurred speech.
- LeClercq admitted drinking two glasses of wine and failed field sobriety tests (except for one-leg stand due to leg injury).
- Trooper DeBie planned to administer a breath test using a portable analyzer after a 15-minute observation and advisory form; LeClercq asked about refusing, and was told that forced blood could be drawn if she refused.
- Breath test yielded an alcohol concentration of about .141/.143; charged with misdemeanor DUI; LeClercq moved to suppress the breath testing evidence; district court denied; LeClercq appealed with conditional guilty plea.
- The appellate court reviewed the suppression ruling de novo on the law while reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the breath test results were admissible under implied consent and Fourth Amendment standards. | LeClercq argues coercion and statutory noncompliance taint the consent. | State contends implied consent attaches upon driving and the test was administered reasonably. | Breath test results admissible; implied consent valid under Idaho law. |
| Whether the officer's statements about a forced blood draw rendered the consent involuntary. | LeClercq contends threats of forced blood draw coerced her into submitting. | Trooper's statements were explanations of consequences, not coercive. | Not coercive; statements did not render consent involuntary. |
| Whether Harmon/Nickerson limitations on coercion apply to invalidate implied consent when the officer stated possible consequences of refusal. | LeClercq relies on Harmon to suggest potential invalidation of consent. | Nickerson/Harmon acknowledge potential risk but do not require suppression here; consent remains valid. | Consent remains valid; officers may inform of consequences without invalidating implied consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Diaz, 144 Idaho 300 (Idaho Supreme Court 2007) (implied consent valid; testing admissible despite warnings not aligning with statute)
- State v. DeWitt, 145 Idaho 709 (Ct.App. 2008) (implied consent and admissibility despite notice issues; testing permissible)
- State v. Harmon, 131 Idaho 80 (Ct.App.1998) (cannot render statute-based consent unconstitutionally coerced absent misconduct)
- State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 (Ct.App.1999) (consent at station not required for admissibility; implied consent governs)
- State v. Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 (Idaho Supreme Ct. 1989) (legislature sought to discourage refusal via suspension; consent not revocable)
- Diaz (duplicate for citation purposes), 144 Idaho 300 (2007) (as above)
- DeWitt (duplicate for citation purposes), 145 Idaho 709 (2008) (as above)