State v. Miller
312 Neb. 17
Neb.2022Background
- In Feb. 2020 Miller was found unconscious in a ditch after a single-vehicle rollover; officers smelled alcohol and found an open beer can and vehicle debris nearby.
- EMS transported Miller to a hospital for emergency care; medical staff, at police direction and without a warrant, drew blood showing a BAC of .254.
- Miller was charged with DUI (.15 or over, later enhanced) and driving during revocation; he moved to suppress the warrantless blood draw.
- At a Jackson v. Denno hearing the court found Miller’s later verbal answers ("No" to whether anyone else was in the vehicle) voluntary but declined to find admissible Miller’s earlier unintelligible moans; the video was redacted.
- A jury convicted Miller (DUI and driving during revocation); after enhancement he was sentenced to consecutive prison terms within statutory limits and appealed, challenging suppression, admissibility of statements, completeness of the video, sufficiency of the evidence, and the sentences.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Miller's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless blood draw (exigent circumstances) | Unconscious driver + need for immediate medical care that could alter BAC made obtaining a warrant impracticable (Mitchell/Schmerber/McNeely framework). | Officers had time/resources to get a warrant; warrantless draw violated the Fourth Amendment. | Court: Facts support exigent circumstances (unconsciousness, urgent treatment, risk of evidence dissipation); warrantless draw reasonable. |
| Voluntariness/admissibility of accident-scene statements (Jackson v. Denno) | The later clear responses ("What?" / "No") were voluntary, noncoerced, and admissible. | Miller’s intoxication/unconsciousness made statements involuntary and not understood. | Court: No clear error in finding subsequent statements voluntary and admissible. |
| Rule of completeness (admission of unredacted cruiser video) | Redaction appropriate per court’s voluntariness findings; complete video not required. | Excluding initial moans deprived context and prejudiced Miller. | Court: Any incompleteness was harmless—initial moans were elicited through officer testimony; no reversible error. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Miller was operating the vehicle | Circumstantial proof (only person found, among debris, answered that no one else was in vehicle, vehicle registered to family, scene search found no other person) supports inference he was driver. | No direct eyewitness and Miller was 100 ft from vehicle; insufficient to prove operation. | Court: Viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational juror could find operation beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Sentence excessive / judicial bias from judge’s prior recollection | N/A | Sentence should be shorter or probation; judge improperly relied on personal recollection of juvenile proceedings. | Court: Sentences within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion; judge’s recollection did not show bias and relied on presentence report. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (Fourth Amendment: blood draw is a search; exigent circumstances can justify warrantless blood draw)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (No per se exigency from alcohol dissipation; exigency must be assessed case-by-case)
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (Plurality: unconscious drivers present exigent circumstances that almost always permit warrantless blood draws)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (Discusses warrant requirement and limits for breath vs. blood tests in DUI enforcement)
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (Due process requires a hearing to determine voluntariness before admitting confessions)
- State v. Blackman, 254 Neb. 941 (Neb. case recognizing that circumstantial evidence can support DUI/operation findings)