ME: Def’s mere acquiescence to his blood draw was not consent

Defendant’s mere acquiescence in his blood draw was not consent, and the trial court’s suppression order is affirmed. Implied consent no longer exists by statute, and the state had to prove consent. The trial court held that it did not, and the evidence supports the conclusion. State v. Boyd, 2017 ME 36, 2017 Me. LEXIS 34 (March 2, 2017):

[*P12] The court was not compelled, based on the evidence presented, to find that Boyd’s acquiescence to the blood draw demonstrated his voluntary consent and overcame the warrant requirement. See Cress, 576 A.2d at 1367 (holding that, to demonstrate voluntary consent, the State must show “more than a mere ‘acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority’” (quoting Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 549 (1968))). The police officer who arrested Boyd testified only that Boyd did not object to testing and that he was “very cooperative.” The paramedic similarly testified that Boyd did not object to the blood draw. This evidence does not compel a finding of an objective manifestation of voluntary consent. Bailey, 2012 ME 55, ¶ 16, 41 A.3d 535; cf. Cress, 576 A.2d at 1367 (affirming the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained after the defendant taxidermist manifested his consent to the search by accompanying game wardens into his basement shop, where he unlocked, opened, and emptied his freezer).

This entry was posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.