Jared S. Hoerle v. Nebraska

This Court held in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016), that the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless blood tests incident to arrests for drunk driving, and that motorists cannot be criminally punished for refusing to submit to a blood test based on implied consent. In this case, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that blood draws obtained prior to Birchfield were not subject to exclusion at trial, even if the motorist did not voluntarily consent, because officers acted in good faith on state statute. The Nebraska Supreme Court further held that consent obtained after threat of criminal prosecution is not per se involuntary. This case presents the opportunity for this Court to clarify the appropriate use of the good faith exception. The Nebraska Supreme Court’s unprecedented application of the good faith exception in this case greatly expanded the doctrine, and ignored the longstanding precedent that evidence obtained with involuntary consent is inadmissible. The questions presented are:

1. Whether Birchfield v. North Dakota created a categorical rule that consent given after threat of criminal prosecution is per se involuntary.

2. Whether the exclusionary rule applies to preBirchfield blood draws obtained pursuant to implied consent laws invalidated by Birchfield v. North Dakota.