State v. Miller, 978 N.W.2d 19

Background

Late-night single-vehicle rollover: officers found Dustin Miller unconscious in a ditch ~100 feet from a heavily damaged pickup; officers smelled alcohol and observed an open beer can and debris at the scene.
Miller was in and out of consciousness at the scene and unconscious at the hospital; medical staff diagnosed fractured vertebrae and said immediate treatment (including fluids) could affect blood-alcohol content.
Officer Kliegl, who had probable cause to suspect DUI, directed hospital staff to draw Miller’s blood without a warrant; the result was BAC .254.
Miller moved to suppress the blood-test results as an unconstitutional warrantless search; he also sought a Jackson v. Denno hearing on voluntariness of his statements at the scene.
At the Denno hearing the court admitted Miller’s later, clearer responses (e.g., “No” when asked whether anyone else was in the truck) as voluntary, but ordered redaction of earlier unintelligible groans; the jury heard the redacted video, Kliegl’s testimony about the groans, and the blood result.
Jury convicted Miller of non‑aggravated DUI (≥ .08) and driving during revocation; after enhancement he was convicted of DUI, fourth offense, and driving during revocation, second offense, and sentenced to consecutive terms (3 years and 3–5 years). The district court’s rulings and convictions were affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Miller's Argument	Held
Warrantless blood draw — exigent circumstances	Hospital treatment/ unconsciousness + dissipation of BAC made obtaining a warrant impractical; Mitchell controls — warrantless draw was reasonable	Officers had time and resources to obtain a warrant; nonconsensual draw violated Fourth Amendment	Court: Exigent circumstances existed under Mitchell; warrantless blood draw was reasonable and suppression properly denied
Admissibility of statements (Jackson v. Denno)	Later, intelligible answers ("No") were voluntary; Denno hearing should admit those statements	Miller argued statements were involuntary or unintelligible and should be excluded	Court: Trial court reasonably found the subsequent statements voluntary; admission was not clearly erroneous
Rule of completeness — exclusion of unredacted cruiser video	State: redaction appropriate because initial groans were not shown to be understood	Miller: redaction omitted context (initial responses) and prejudiced jury	Court: Any error harmless — jury still heard testimony about initial groans, so exclusion did not affect outcome
Sufficiency of evidence that Miller was driver	State: circumstantial evidence (only person at scene, among vehicle debris, answered no to passenger question, scene search found no others) supports inference he drove	Miller: No witness saw him driving; found 100 feet from vehicle; vehicle not registered to him — insufficient to prove operation	Court: Circumstantial evidence was sufficient; rational juror could infer Miller was the driver
Sentence excessive / judicial bias	State: sentence within statutory limits and based on PSI, criminal history, public protection	Miller: shorter/ probation warranted due to dependents and medical debt; judge relied on personal recollection of prior juvenile involvement	Court: Sentences within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion; judge’s recollection did not demonstrate bias

Key Cases Cited

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (recognized blood draw as a Fourth Amendment search and upheld warrantless draw on case-specific exigency facts)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (rejected a per se exigency rule based solely on alcohol dissipation; exigency assessed case-by-case)
Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019) (plurality: when a suspected drunk driver is unconscious and breath testing is impossible, warrantless blood tests are almost always permitted)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (due-process hearing required to determine voluntariness of confessions/admissions)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) (distinguished warrant rules for breath vs. nonconsensual blood tests in DUI context)
State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (2017) (Nebraska case noting exigent circumstances may authorize warrantless blood testing)