LA: Failure to argue Schmerber in trial court was waiver

Defendant’s failure to argue Schmerber in the trial court was [essentially] waiver, and defendant didn’t show the trial court erred. State v. Michael, 2020 La. LEXIS 1347 (July 9, 2020):

Neither the application of Birchfield or Schmerber was considered by the district court when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress, however, because defendant did not make these arguments in the district court. In denying defendant’s motion to suppress, the district court rejected defendant’s claim that his consent was obtained through misinformation, deceit, or coercion. The ruling of a district court on a motion to suppress will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Long, 03-2592, p. 5 (La. 9/9/04), 884 So.2d 1176, 1179-80. The district court made its determination after hearing testimony from the trooper and defendant about the information provided by the trooper and the circumstances under which defendant consented to the blood test. While defendant focuses in this Court not on those issues but rather on Birchfield, he neglects to argue why Schmerber is not applicable in this case. Defendant has failed to show any reason here to justify disturbing the district court’s ruling.

Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the BAC evidence and that Birchfield does not require the BAC results to be suppressed in this case. The matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.