State v. Hoerle

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Jared S. Hoerle’s motion for a new trial following his DUI conviction. The court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the warrantless pre-Birchfield blood draw because the officer reasonably relied on a statute that was not clearly unconstitutional at the time. The court also held that the voluntariness of consent to a blood test must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.

Holdings

1. Birchfield does not categorically invalidate a warrantless blood draw based on actual consent merely because the driver was incorrectly advised that submission was required or that refusal could result in criminal penalties. The voluntariness of consent must be determined from the totality of the circumstances.
2. The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to warrantless blood draws conducted before Birchfield when the officer acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute that was not clearly unconstitutional at the time.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hoerle's motion for a new trial because the good-faith exception applied to the evidence from the pre-Birchfield blood draw.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Hoerle's motion for a new trial based on the admission of evidence from a warrantless blood draw conducted before Birchfield v. North Dakota.
2. Whether Birchfield categorically invalidated actual consent to a warrantless blood draw when the motorist was incorrectly advised that refusal could result in criminal penalties.
3. Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to a warrantless pre-Birchfield blood draw conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute that had not been declared unconstitutional.

Disposition

affirmed