865 N.W.2d 492
S.D.2015Background
- On May 3, 2014, Rapid City officer stopped Eric Medicine for a traffic offense, administered field sobriety tests, and arrested him for DUI.
- Officer Neisen read the Rapid City DUI advisement card, which stated SDCL 32-23-10 deems an operator to have consented to blood withdrawal and then requested Medicine submit to a blood draw; after the reading Medicine responded affirmatively.
- Medicine was handcuffed, in custody, placed in a police vehicle, and approximately 44 minutes elapsed between the stop and the blood draw at the county jail.
- Medicine moved to suppress the blood test evidence, arguing his consent was involuntary because the advisement card conveyed that he was already required to give blood.
- The circuit court granted the motion and suppressed the blood evidence; the State appealed solely on whether consent was voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Medicine's consent to a blood draw was voluntary | Consent was voluntary — officer read statutory advisement and asked for consent; Medicine affirmed | Consent was involuntary — advisement misrepresented that consent was already given/required, he was in custody, and he believed he had no right to refuse | Consent was involuntary; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (establishes de novo review of legal conclusions on suppression; defer to facts unless clearly erroneous)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (discusses preference for warrants and probable-cause standards)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (blood draw is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant or exception)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent induced by assertion of authority equivalent to a warrant is not voluntary)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (custody alone does not automatically invalidate consent but is relevant)
- Lo–Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (presumed official authority can negate voluntariness of compliance)