Idaho v. Arrotta

In 2012, Idaho State Police stopped defendant-respondent Derek Arrotta for a traffic violation. At the end of the stop, defendant was issued a citation for misdemeanor driving while under the influence of alcohol. Defendant filed a motion to suppress “based on violations of the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, right to remain silent, right to counsel, and related constitutional protections under the State of Idaho Constitution and the United States Constitution,” but the motion did not identify what evidence he wanted to suppress or how his rights were allegedly violated. The parties agreed to postpone the matter until the United States Supreme Court decided "Missouri v. McNeely." After the Supreme Court issued its opinion in McNeely, the magistrate court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. The trooper testified to the events and stated that he did not recall telling Defendant that he did not have a right to refuse the blood test. However, he also testified that he told Defendant that if he refused the breath test, the trooper would get a blood draw. Defendant testified that he refused the breath test, but not the blood test. He testified that at the hospital he asked if he could refuse the blood test, “but they pretty much said no.” When asked if the trooper told Defendant he could not refuse the blood draw, Defendant answered, “Yeah, something to that extent.” The magistrate court did not resolve the factual dispute regarding whether Defendant was told that he could not refuse the blood draw. Rather, it held that statutory implied consent was insufficient by itself to constitute consent to a search in the form of a blood draw; that express consent was required. Based upon that holding, the court granted Defendant’s motion and issued an order suppressing the blood test results. The State appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed the suppression order, holding that statutory implied consent to a blood draw is revocable. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court.