In fact that is rare. Case in point -- literally -- State v. Valenzuela. On the one hand the Arizona Supreme Court found the Defendant’s Constitutional rights to be free of warrantless searches of his person had been violated. On the other hand, the Court found that since the officer violated Defendant’s Constitutional rights in “good faith”, the Defendant’s conviction and sentence stood.
In State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 371 P.3d 627 (2016), the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed a trial court decision that a jury could hear evidence obtained from breath and blood tests. The issue was whether the police had violated the Defendant’s 4th Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It has been clear since 2013 that a compelled blood draw or breath test is a search subject to 4th Amendment restrictions. A warrantless search is per se unreasonable under the 4th Amendment unless one of a few well-established exceptions apply. One exception is consent to the search, but the State has the burden of demonstrating that the consent was freely and voluntarily given. Case law had established that consent is not freely and voluntarily given when, considering all of the circumstances, consent was coerced by threats, or force, or granted only in submission to a claim of lawful authority (e.g. when a police officer falsely represents that the officer has a search warrant but truly do not).
At issue in Valenzuela was how to apply Arizona’s statute (A.R.S. §28-1321) that states that by driving a motor vehicle in Arizona, a driver is deemed to have consented to the taking of blood, breath, urine or other bodily substances to determine if the person is DUI.
The statute says that if a person is arrested, the person shall be “requested” to submit to and successfully complete the test. The statute includes a provision if a person refuses to submit to a test or fails to successfully complete the test, none shall be given, but the person’s driving privileges are subject to suspension for 12-24 months.
In the Valenzuela case, the police officer told the Defendant: “Arizona law requires you to submit to and successfully complete tests of breath, blood or other bodily substance as chosen by a law enforcement officer to determine alcohol concentration or drug content.” The officer stressed this “requirement” three additional times and warned that refusal would result in a one-year suspension of Valenzuela’s driver’s license. (Although the officer read from part of the form while testifying at the suppression hearing, the form itself is not in the record.) The Defendant then submitted to the test.
First, the Supreme Court acknowledged that in reviewing a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion, it considered the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court – in Valenzuela’s case, the ruling was in favor of the State. The Court noted that an error of law could constitute an abuse of discretion.
Second, the Court noted that the Arizona statute did not require Valenzuela to submit to the testing, so the officer’s instructions to the Defendant were erroneous. The Court noted that: “Our society expects, and unquestionably demands, that people follow directives issued by law enforcement officer.”
The Court made the following holding:
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’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.
Having found that the Defendant’s Constitutional right to be free from warrantless searches was violated, the Court moved on to consider the State’s argument that the evidence should not be excluded based upon the officer having acted in a good faith belief that his conduct was lawful.
A majority of the Court found that the officer did not deliberately, recklessly, or with gross negligence” conduct an unlawful search, therefore, the good faith exception applied in Valenzuela’s case and the conviction and sentence were sustained.
One Arizona Justice did dissent. As to the issue of good faith, the dissenting Justice pointed out that the trial court did not consider or rule on the issue of good faith, so there was no record from which to make the finding. The dissenting Justice further pointed out:
“Here, the police incorrectly told drivers that they were lawfully required to submit to tests, even though our 2010
decision in Carrillo recognized that ‘the statute has always provided that any arrestee may refuse to submit.’
Applying the good-faith exception here effectively rewards the systemic failure to revise the MVD admonition to
accurately state the law.”