State v. Schmidt
385 P.3d 936
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Sept. 2012 Michael Schmidt was injured in an accident; Deputy Garner suspected DUI, transported Schmidt to a hospital, and requested a blood draw after advising Schmidt with Kansas "implied consent" warnings (oral and DC-70 form), including that refusal was a separate crime.
- Schmidt consented and a blood sample taken within 3 hours showed BAC .20; he was later charged with DUI and moved to suppress the blood-test results as an unconstitutional warrantless search obtained via coercive consent.
- District court denied suppression, finding consent valid; Schmidt pleaded (bench trial on stipulated facts) and was convicted and sentenced; he appealed.
- After briefs were filed, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield (distinguishing breath and blood tests and holding motorists cannot be criminally punished for refusing warrantless blood draws), and the Kansas Supreme Court issued Nece and Ryce questioning implied-consent advisories and refusal penalties.
- This Court held the warrantless blood draw could not be upheld on consent (per Birchfield) but considered the State’s new-on-appeal good-faith-exception argument and whether suppression was required.
Issues
| Issue | Schmidt's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless blood draw authorized by Kansas Implied Consent qualifies as voluntary consent when officer warned refusal was a separate crime | Consent was involuntary/coerced because advisory threatened criminal penalties, so search violated Fourth Amendment | Advisory compliance made consent lawful; Kansas law allowed enforcement and precedent upheld such draws | Consent exception cannot justify warrantless blood draw; advice threatening criminal penalty rendered consent involuntary under Birchfield and related Kansas decisions |
| Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule saves admission of blood-test results (State raised on appeal) | Suppression necessary to vindicate Fourth Amendment and deter unconstitutional statutes; allowing good-faith would chill rights and enable legislative overreach | Officer reasonably relied on then-valid statute and precedent; suppression would not further deterrence because reliance was objectively reasonable | Good-faith exception applies: officer objectively reasonably relied on statutory advisory and existing precedent; suppression not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless breath tests permissible incident to arrest but warrantless blood tests are not; motorists cannot be criminally punished for refusing blood draws)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (good-faith exception applies when officers reasonably rely on a statute later declared unconstitutional)
- State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490 (Kan. 2010) (Kansas applied Krull and allowed good-faith reliance on a statutory authority later invalidated)
- State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (Kan. 2016) (Kansas held statute criminalizing refusal to test facially unconstitutional in context of breath tests)
- State v. Nece, 303 Kan. 888 (Kan. 2016) (consent premised on coercive implied-consent advisory is involuntary)
- State v. Pettay, 299 Kan. 763 (Kan. 2014) (declined good-faith exception where officer failed to follow clear statutory limits on a search)