State v. Degarmo

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that David E. Degarmo voluntarily consented to a warrantless urine search during a drug recognition evaluation following his arrest for driving under the influence. Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the court concluded that informing Degarmo of his right to refuse and stating that officers would seek a warrant if he refused did not constitute coercion, and it affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress.

Holdings

1. Degarmo voluntarily consented to the warrantless search of his urine. The consent was a free and unconstrained choice rather than the product of express, implied, physical, or psychological coercion.
2. Because Degarmo voluntarily consented to the urine search, the warrantless search fell within the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, and the urine-test results were admissible.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Degarmo's motion to suppress the results of the warrantless urine test on the ground that his consent was involuntary under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution.
2. Whether the circumstances of Degarmo's arrest, detention, drug recognition evaluation, and the advisement that police would seek a warrant if he refused rendered his written consent coerced.

Disposition

affirmed