State v. Newcomer (William) ( 2014 )

 It summarily rejected the State's argument that the good faith exception
prevents the exclusion of the blood test results in this case.
The State now appeals and raises two issues: (1) whether the
district court erred by finding that the State needed to obtain a search
warrant before drawing blood from Newcomer and (2) whether the district
court erred by not determining if the good faith exception precluded
suppression of the results of the blood test.
Standard of review
"Suppression issues present mixed questions of law and fact."
Johnson v. State, 118 Nev. 787, 794, 59 P.3d 450, 455 (2002), overruled on
other grounds by Nunnery v. State, 127 Nev. , 263 P.3d 235, 250-51
(2011). "[We] review [ ] findings of fact for clear error, but the legal
consequences of those facts involve questions of law that we review de
novo." State v. Beckman, 129 Nev. , 305 P.3d 912, 916 (2013). In
addition, we review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. State v.
Hughes, 127 Nev. „ 261 P.3d 1067, 1069 (2011).
The district court did not err by finding that a warrant was required for
the blood draw
The State argues that a warrant was not required for the
drawing of a blood sample from Newcomer because NRS 484C.160
established Newcomer's implied consent for the search. It does not argue
that any other exception to the warrant requirement applies.
Newcomer argues that the warrantless blood draw was illegal
because the McNeely decision made NRS 484C.160's implied consent
provision unconstitutional and he did not otherwise consent to having his
blood drawn.
A blood draw is a search that is governed by the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution's prohibition against
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
unreasonable searches and seizures. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S.
757, 767 (1966). Thus, a warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant
requirement is necessary to justify a blood draw. McNeely, 569 U.S. at
133 S. Ct. at 1558. Because no warrant was issued for the drawing
of Newcomer's blood, an exception to the warrant requirement must
apply for this to be a lawful search. See id.
In Byars, we determined that NRS 484C.160's implied consent
provision, which authorizes a law enforcement officer to compel a driver to
submit to a blood draw in certain circumstances, violates the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. 130 Nev. at , P.3d
at . Since NRS 484C.160 could not constitutionally authorize the
warrantless blood draw, the district court correctly found that the
warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment.
The district court erred by failing to analyze whether the good faith
exception applies
The State argues that the good faith exception applies in this
case because the police officer who ordered the blood draw complied with a
then-valid Nevada statute and controlling appellate decisions when
conducting the search. Newcomer argues that the good faith exception
does not apply because McNeely merely clarified then-existing appellate
caselaw.
The United States Constitution does not require the exclusion
of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Arizona v.
Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 10 (1995). Instead, the exclusionary rule is a judicial
remedy whose purpose is to deter violations of the Fourth Amendment.
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984); see also State v. Allen, 119
Nev. 166, 172, 69 P.3d 232, 236 (2003) ("Exclusion is only appropriate
where the remedial objectives of the exclusionary rule are served.").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
The good faith exception precludes the exclusion of evidence
"when the police conduct a search in 'objectively reasonable reliance' on a
warrant later held invalid." Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. „ 131
S. Ct. 2419, 2428 (2011) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 922). The good faith
exception also prevents the exclusion of evidence obtained in a warrantless
search that was conducted in reasonable reliance on either "binding
appellate precedent" or a then-valid statute. Id. at , 131 S. Ct. at 2429
(holding that reasonable reliance on controlling appellate caselaw
constitutes good faith); Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 349-50 (1987)
(holding that reasonable reliance on a statute constitutes good faith).
In the present case, the district court summarily concluded
that it did not need to consider if the good faith exception applied because
it found that the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution. It did not address whether the blood
draw complied with a then-valid statute or binding appellate precedent.
Therefore, the district court erred by failing to analyze whether the blood
draw met the good faith exception.
Conclusion
NRS 484C.160's implied consent provision violates the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, the district
court properly concluded that the statute did not exempt the search from
the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. However, the district
court erred when it failed to address whether the good faith exception
prevents the exclusion of the evidence obtained in this search. Therefore,
we
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(01 1947A ae
ORDER the district court's order granting Newcomer's motion
to suppress REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court
for proceedings consistent with this order.
, C.J.
Gibbons
J.
J.
Hardesty
1 0
Parraguirre
\--; 1Th(4-91 ( raes3 J.
Douglas
yrv
, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Kirk T. Kennedy
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A e