State v. Brooks
Annotate this CaseIn each of three separate incidents, the State charged Defendant with two counts of first-degree driving while impaired. Defendant moved to suppress the results of blood and urine tests in each case because law enforcement officers took the samples without a warrant. The district courts denied Defendant's request to suppress the test results, concluding (1) the evanescent quality of alcohol in Defendant's body created exigent circumstances that excused police from seeking a warrant to obtain the urine tests; and (2) Defendant consented to the blood test. The district courts subsequently convicted Defendant of first-degree driving while impaired. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments and remanded for further consideration in light of Missouri v. McNeely. Following remand, the court of appeals reinstated Defendant's appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Defendant consented to the search, and therefore, police did not need a warrant to search Defendant's blood or urine.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.