State v. Micah Abraham Wulff
157 Idaho 416
| Idaho | 2014Background
- Wulff was stopped for speeding in Idaho in Oct. 2012; deputy smelled alcohol and noted red, bloodshot eyes after Wulff exited the car.
- Wulff admitted drinking and performed poorly on field sobriety tests, leading to DUI suspicion.
- Wulff was taken into custody and refused a breath test; deputy took him to a hospital for a blood draw without a warrant.
- The blood sample showed a BAC of .217; Wulff moved to suppress the results as obtained without a warrant or valid consent.
- The State argued Idaho’s implied consent statute allowed warrantless testing; Wulff argued no valid consent and no exigent circumstances.
- The district court suppressed the blood-draw evidence, prompting the State to appeal the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Idaho’s implied consent statute constitutes a per se exception to the Fourth Amendment. | Wulff (plaintiff) would argue implied consent under Idaho code operates as a valid consent-based exception. | Wulff contends implied consent is not per se and McNeely prohibits such per se rule. | Per se implication rejected; implied consent not a per se exception. |
| Whether Missouri v. McNeely requires treating implied consent as per se invalid and mandates case-by-case analysis. | Wulff argues McNeely applies totality-of-circumstances to all blood draws, limiting per se rules. | State argues McNeely applies mainly to exigency, not to implied-consent as a rule. | McNeely requires totality-of-circumstances analysis, barring per se rules for implied consent. |
| Whether Idaho’s implied-consent framework is unconstitutional as a per se exception to the warrant requirement. | Diaz and Woolery supported implied consent as a valid exception prior to McNeely. | State contends implied consent remains valid under state law. | Idaho’s implied-consent statute is not a valid per se exception; Diaz and Woolery overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1559 (U.S. 2013) (totality of circumstances governs warrantless blood draws; rejects per se rule)
- Diaz, 144 Idaho 300 (Idaho 2007) (implied consent to evidentiary testing supported by driving on state roads)
- Woolery, 116 Idaho 368 (Idaho 1989) (exigent and implied-consent theories for warrantless blood draws (abrogated for exigency by McNeely))
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent must be voluntary and determined by totality of circumstances)
- McNeely (plurality discussion), 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (rejects per se rules and emphasizes totality-of-circumstances in different contexts)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood tests incident to DUI are searches; may be justified by exceptions to the warrant requirement)