{"id":21960,"date":"2016-05-01T06:29:02","date_gmt":"2016-05-01T11:29:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21960"},"modified":"2016-05-02T07:26:05","modified_gmt":"2016-05-02T12:26:05","slug":"az-davis-gfe-saved-mcneely-blood-draw-violation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21960","title":{"rendered":"AZ: Davis GFE saved McNeely blood draw violation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The state failed to show that defendant consented to his blood draw, but Davis\u2019s good faith exception saves the search here. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.azcourts.gov\/Portals\/0\/OpinionFiles\/Supreme\/2016\/CR150222PR.pdf\">State v. Valenzuela<\/a>, 2016 Ariz. LEXIS 116 (April 26, 2016), rev\u2019g 237 Ariz. 307, 350 P.3d 811 (App. 2015):<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>P30 In sum, we hold that the State failed to carry its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Valenzuela freely and voluntarily consented to providing samples of his blood and breath. By advising Valenzuela after he was arrested and detained that Arizona law required him to submit to testing, the officer invoked lawful authority to compel consent. Because nothing in the suppression hearing record dispels the coercive implication of the officer&#8217;s repeated admonition, the trial court erred by finding that Valenzuela had voluntarily consented to the search and then denying the motion to suppress the test results on that basis. Cf. Medicine, 865 N.W.2d at 500 \u00b6 17 (holding consent to blood draw involuntary when, among other circumstances, it was given after officer informed arrestee that South Dakota law provides that drivers automatically consent to blood draws).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Accord: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.azcourts.gov\/Portals\/0\/OpinionFiles\/Supreme\/2016\/CV150042PR.pdf\">Brown v. McClennen<\/a>, 2016 Ariz. LEXIS 117 (April 26, 2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The state failed to show that defendant consented to his blood draw, but Davis\u2019s good faith exception saves the search here. State v. Valenzuela, 2016 Ariz. LEXIS 116 (April 26, 2016), rev\u2019g 237 Ariz. 307, 350 P.3d 811 (App. 2015):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drug-testing","category-gps-tracking-data"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21960"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21960\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21972,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21960\/revisions\/21972"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}