# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 28 78

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Reb ecca J. Wall, i nd iv id ua ll y an d o n b eh al f of

all ot he rs si m il arl y

si tu at ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ri ch ard W . Sta ne k, i n h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty onl y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 5 Fil ed : J ul y

21 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BRIGHT an d M URPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Thi s cas e req ui res us to ru le up on th e va li di ty of a su sp ect ed im pa ire d dr iv er’s

co ns en t to a bl oo d- al co ho l te st whe n th e dr iv er was co rrec tl y in fo rm ed be fo reh an d th at it is a cri m e to refu se th e te st

. Hav in g ag reed to a bl oo d- al co ho l te st un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces , Reb ecca W al l no w br in gs a 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n ag ai ns t Hen ne pi n Co un ty Sh eri ff Rich ard St an ek in hi s offi ci al cap aci ty (co un ty), al le gi ng th e co un ty ha d a pol ic y or pr act ic e of co nd uc ti ng warra nt le ss , no nc on se ns ua l bl ood-a lc ohol te sts ,whi ch vi ol at ed W al l’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s. The di st ric t c o u r t di sa gr eed
, 1
fin di ng no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n an d no co un ty li ab il i t y u n d e r Mo ne ll v. Dep art m en t o f So ci al Serv ic es , 43 6 U.S. 6 58 (19 78 ). W al l ap pe al s, an d we a ffi rm

.

I. BACKGRO UND A. Fac ts At ap pr ox im at el y 1: 00 a.m

. on Ju ne 20
, 20 11
, Hen ne pi n Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Dep ut y Barb ara Ru ss et h st op pe d W al l fo r a tra ffi c v i o l a t io n. Upo n he r ex it in g th e

ve hi cl e, W al l sm el le d of al co ho l, ex hi bi te d poor ba la nc e, fa il ed m

ul ti pl e fie ld so br ie ty
te st s, an d in a pr el im in ary br e a t h t e s t, sh e pr od uc ed a bl oo d- al co ho l co nc en tra ti on (BAC) of .10 9—

be y on d th e .08 le ga l th res ho ld
, se e Mi nn

. St a t

. § 16 9A.2 0, su bd

. 1( 5)

. Bas ed on th es e res ul ts , Dep ut y Ru ss et h arre st ed W al l an d arra ng ed fo r he r car
to be to wed

.

At aro un d 1: 40 a.m ., th ey arri ve d at pa tro l he ad qu art ers , whe re Dep ut y Ru ss et h

so ug ht W al l’s co ns en t to co nd uc t a ur in e or bl oo d te st to de te rm in e W al l’s BAC. In 2

co m pl ia nc e wit h Mi nn es ot a’s Im pl ie d Co ns en t Law, se e Mi nn

. St at

. § 16 9A.5 1, su bd

. 2, Dep ut y Ru ss et h read al ou d th e st at e’s “ im pl ie d co ns en t ad vi so ry ,” in fo rm in g W al l th at (1 ) sh e was arre st ed on su sp ic io n of dr iv in g whi le im pa ire d, (2 ) “ Mi nn es ot a la w req ui re[d he r] to ta ke a te st ” of al co ho l co nt en t, (3 ) “ [r]efu sa l to ta ke a t e s t [ wa]s a cri m e,” an d (4 ) “ [b ]efore m ak in g [h e]r de ci si on ab ou t te st in g, [s he ] ha [d ] th e rig ht to

The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt g o mery , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.
W al l do es no t qu es ti on Dep ut y Ru ss et h’s in si st en ce th at W al l ta ke a ur in e or 2 bl oo d te st as op po se d to a le ss in tru si ve , ad di ti on al br eat h te st

. See, e.g ., Mi nn

. St at

. § 16 9A.5 1, su bd

. 3 (p erm it ti ng t h e o ffi cer to “ di rect whe th er th e te st is of bl oo d, br eat h, or ur in e,” bu t ge ne ral ly pr oh ib it in g th e of fic er fro m si ng li ng ou t ei th er bl oo d

or ur in e as th e so le te st ). The reco rd do es no t di sc lo se th e di ffer en ces in av ai la bi li ty

or effi cacy of t he th ree t es ts

. -2

-co ns ul t wit h an at to rn ey .” Affi rm in g he r un de rs ta nd in g of he r rig ht s an d di sc la im in g

he r ri gh t t o c on su lt an att or ne y , W al l ag reed to a ur in al y si s.

Afte r ab ou t fo rty-fiv e minu te s, W al l ha d no t pr od uc ed a ur in e sa m pl e, so D ep uty Ru ss et h tra ns po rte d W al l to th e Hen ne pi n Co un ty Med ic al Cen te r whe re W al l
ag reed
, at 2: 58 a.m ., to a bl oo d an al y si s. Dep ut y Ru ss et h th en in st ru ct ed a reg is te red

nu rs e to dr aw a bl oo d sa m pl e. Ana lysis of th e sa m

pl e in di cat ed a BAC of .06

. W al l pl ed gu il ty to a pe tt y m is de m ean o r tra ffi c vi ol at io n an d he r DW I ch arg e was di sm is se d.

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry W al l br ou gh t th is la wsu i t , a l l e g i ng th e co un ty ha d a po li cy or cu st om of

co nd uc ti ng warra nt le ss , no nc on se ns ua l bl oo d- al co ho l te st s in vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur th
Am en dm en t. The co un ty fil ed a m ot io n f or su m m ary jud gm en t, arg ui ng W al l ha d

vo lu nt ari ly co ns en te d to th e bl oo d dr aw. Fo ll owi ng th e reas on in g of th e Mi nn es ot a S u p r e me Co ur t in St at e v. Bro ok s, 83 8 N.W .2d 56 3, 56 5, 57 2 (Mi nn

. 20 13 ), th e di st ric t co ur t ag reed th at W al l’s co ns en t m ad e t h e b lo od dr aw co ns ti tu ti on al an d
gr an te d s um m ary jud gm en t i n t he co un ty’ s fa vo r. W al l t im el y ap pe al ed

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

“ ‘O n ap pe al
, th is co ur t rev ie ws gr an ts of su m m a r y ju d g men t de no vo , an d

rev ie ws th e ev id en ce an d al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

no nm ov in g pa r t y.’ ” Nw. Airl in es , In c. v. Pro f’l Airc raft Lin e Serv
., 77 6 F.3 d 57 5,
57 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Mo od y v. Voz el
, 77 1 F.3 d 10 93
, 10 96 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )).
Fo r th e co un ty to be li ab le
, W al l m us t pr ov e it s po li ci es or cu st om s cau se d a vi ol at io n of he r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. See Mo ne ll
, 43 6 U.S. at 69 1- 92

. Abs en t a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, “ th ere can be no li ab il it y fo r th e c o u nt y .” Hawki ns v. Gag e Cn ty., Neb
., 75 9 F .3d 95 1, 9 59 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

-3

-T he Fo ur th A m en dm en t pr ote ct s ag ai nst int ru sio ns up on a pe rs on ’s “ ‘leg it im at e

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy,’ ” whi ch ex is ts whe re “ th e in di vi du al
, by h[ er] co nd uc t, ha s ‘exh ib it ed an act ua l (s ub

jecti ve ) ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy’ ” an d th is ex pe ct at ion “ is ‘one

t h a t so ci et y is pr ep ared to reco gn iz e as reas on ab le .’ ” Sm it h v. Mar y la nd , 4 42 U

. S

. 73 5, 74 0 (1 97 9) (q uo ti ng Katz v. Uni te d St at es , 3 8 9 U

. S . 3 47 , 3 61 (1 96 7) (Harl an , J., co nc ur rin g) ). No on e qu es ti on s W al l’s su bjec ti ve ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy ov er he r

own bl oo d, an d al l ag ree W al l’s bl oo d dr aw “ in fri ng e[d ] an ex pe ct at i o n o f p r i va cy th at so ci et y is pr ep ared to reco gn iz e as reas on ab le ,” as di d “ [t]he en s ui ng ch em ic al

an al y si s of th e sa m

pl e to ob ta in ph y si ol og ic al da ta .” S k i n n e r v. Ry

. Lab or Exe cu ti ve s’ Ass ’n, 48 9 U.S. 6 02 , 61 6 (1 98 9)

.

The real qu es ti on at is su e is whe th er th is “ se arch []” was tru ly “ un reas on ab le .” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV; se e al so Sk in ne r, 48 9 U.S. at 61 9 (“ [T]he Fo ur th Am en dm en t do es no t pr os cri be al l se arch es an d se iz ur es , bu t on ly th os e th at are un reas on ab le .”).

“ W ha t is reas on ab le
, of co ur se , ‘dep en ds on al l of th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e

se arch or se iz ur e an d th e na tu re of th e se arch or se iz ur e it se lf,’” whi ch en ta il s

“ ‘bal an ci ng it s in tru si on on th e in di vi du al ’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t in te res ts ag ai ns t it s
pr om ot io n of le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en ta l in te res ts .’ ” Sk in ne r, 48 9 U.S. at 61 9 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mo nt oya de Hern an de z, 47 3 U.S. 53 1, 53 7 (1 98 5)
, an d Dela ware v. Pro us e, 44 0 U.S. 6 48 , 65 4 (1 97 9) ).

A co ns en t se arch is reas on ab le un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. See Fern an de z

v. Cal ifo rn ia
, 5 7 1 U

. S

.

_ _ _ ,

__ _, 13 4 S. Ct

. 11 26
, 11 32 (2 01 4)

. The co un ty ha s
pr ov id ed un di sp ut ed ev id en ce s h o w i n g W al l co ns en te d to th e bl oo d dr aw aft er sh e

was un ab le to pr od uc e a ur in e sa m pl e. See D e r v

. C o nn ol ly, 66 6 F.3 d 11 20
, 11 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e de fen da nt on ly ha s th e bu rd en of pr od uc in g ev id en ce of co ns en t in § 19 83 act io ns ). Bec au se W al l ch al le ng es th e va li di ty of th is co ns en t, sh e be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g he r “ wil l [was ] ov erb or ne an d h[ er] cap aci ty fo r se lfde te rm in at io n cri ti cal l y i mp a i red .” Sch ne ck lo th v. Bu st am on te , 4 12 U.S. 2 18 , 2 25 (1 97 3) ; s ee al so Der, 66 6 F.3 d at 11 28 (“ [T]he ul ti m at e ri sk of n on pe rs ua si on m us t

-4

-rem ai n sq ua rel y on th e pl ai nt iff .” (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ). W al l en de av or s to do th is no t by fo cu si ng on th e ci rcu m st an ces , su rro un di ng s, or m an ne r of Dep ut y Ru ss et h’s
req ue st , b ut by co nt en di ng th at th e ch oi ce be twee n co ns en t an d pu ni sh ab le refu sa l,

se e Mi nn . Sta t. § 16 9A.2 0, s ub d. 2 , pl aced W al l i n a n u nc on st it ut io na l d il em m a.

The Uni te d St at es Su p r e me C ou rt ha s pr ev io us ly ex am in ed th e di le m m a

crea te d by s im il ar im

pl ie d co ns en t la ws. In So ut h Dak ot a v. Nev il le , 4 59 U.S. 5 53 (1 98 3)
, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of So ut h Dak ot a’s im pl ie d

co ns en t st at ut e, un de r whi ch th e p ric e o f refu si ng a bl oo d- al co ho l t es t was th e on ey ear rev oc at io n of a su sp ec t ’s li cen se (aft er a he ari ng ) an d th e ab il it y to us e th e

su sp ect ’s refu sa l ag ai ns t hi m at tri al

. See id

. at 55 9- 60

. As to th e li cen se rev oc at io n, th e Co ur t de ci de d th is pe na lt y was “ un qu es ti on ab ly le gi ti m at e, as su m in g ap pr op ria te
pr oc ed ur al pr ot ect io ns .” Id

. at 56 0. The C o u r t a ls o de te rm in ed th at th e Fi fth
Am en dm en t di d no t pr ecl ud e th e st at e fro m us in g th e de fen da nt ’s refu sa l ag ai ns t hi m
at tri al
, be cau se “ [t]he si m pl e bl oo d- al co ho l te st is so s a f e, pa in le ss , an d

co m m on pl ace” th at “ th e St at e co ul d le gi ti m at el y co m pe l th e su sp ect , ag ai ns t hi s wil l,

to acce de to th e te st .” Id

. at 56 3. “ Giv en

. . . th at th e of fer of ta ki ng a bl oo d- al co ho l

te st is cl earl y le gi ti m at e,” th e Co ur t reas on ed th at “ th e a c t i o n be co m es no le ss le gi ti m at e whe n th e St at e of fers a se co nd o p t i o n of refu si ng th e te st , wit h th e
at te nd an t p en al ti es for m ak in g t ha t ch oi ce.” Id

.

Mi nn es ot a g oe s a st ep fu rth er by im po si ng di re ct cri m in al co ns eq ue nc es on refu sa l. See Mi nn

. St at

. § 16 9A.2 0, su bd

. 2. The reas on in g in Nev il le
, ho wev er, ga ve

no ap pa ren t reg ard to th e ha rs hn es s of “ th e a tt en da nt pe na lt ie s fo r m ak in g th [e] ch oi ce” to refu se a te st

. Nev il le
, 45 9 U.S. at 56 3. And th e ch al le ng ed la w in Nev il le al so im po se d cri m in al co ns eq ue nc es on a su sp ect ’s refu sa l— th e st at e co ul d co nv ic t th e su sp ect of a DW I us in g th e r efu sa l as ev id en ce of im pa ire d dr iv in g. See id

. at 56 0, 5 62 -6 3.

-5

-The rece nt fo ur -J us ti ce pl ur al it y op in io n in Mi ss ou ri v. McNe el y , 56 9 U.S.

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. 15 52 (2 01 3)
, ad dr es se d th e co nc ern th at “ ap pl y in g th e tra di ti on al
Fo ur th Am en dm en t to ta li ty-of-t he -ci rcu m st an ces an al y si s to de te rm in e whe t h er an

ex ig en cy jus ti fie d a warra nt le ss se arch wil l u nd erm in e th e g ov ern m en ta l i nt eres t i n
pr ev en ti ng an d pro se cu ti ng dr un k- dr iv in g offe ns es .” Id

. at

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 15 65

- 66

. The pl ur al it y em

ph as iz ed th at whi le th e ba la nc e of st at e in te res ts ag ai ns t pr iv at e in te res ts in bo di ly in te gr it y di d no t jus ti fy a pe r se ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ce ex cep ti on to th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, st at es st il l “ ha ve a br oa d ran ge of le ga l to ol s to en fo rce th ei r dr un k- dr iv in g la ws an d to se cu re BAC ev id en ce wit ho ut un de rt ak in g warra nt le ss

no nc on se ns ua l bl oo d dr aws .” Id

. at

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 15 64 -6 6. “ Fo r ex am pl e,” th e pl ur al it y ex pl ai ne d, “ al l 50 St at es ha ve ad op te d im pl ie d co ns en t la w s th at req ui re

m ot or is ts , as a co nd it io n of op erat in g a m ot or ve hi cl e wit hi n th e St at e, to co ns en t to BAC te st in g if th ey are arre st ed or ot he rwis e de ta in ed on su sp ic io n of a dr un k- dr iv in g of fen se ” an d “ im

po se si gn ifi can t co ns eq ue nc es whe n a m ot or is t wit hd raws co ns en t.” Id . at 1 56 6.

Tho ug h W al l’s st rai ght fo rw ar d co er ci on ar gum en t ha s so m e ap pe al
, th e ge ne ral
pr in ci pl es up on whi ch sh e rel ie s be nd to th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s sp eci fic gu id an ce on im pl ie d- co ns en t la ws. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. Mo sl ey , 50 5 F.3 d 80 4, 81 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s mad e c l e a r th at ‘if a pr eced en t of [th e] Co ur t ha s di rect
ap pl ic at io n in a cas e, y et ap pe ars to res t on reas on s reject ed in so m e ot he r li ne of de c i s i o n s , th e Co ur t of App eal s sh ou ld fo ll ow th e cas e whi ch di rect ly co nt ro ls
, le av in g to [th e] Co ur t th e pr ero ga ti ve of ov erru li ng it s own de ci si on s.’” (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Ro dr ig ue z de Qui jas v. Sh ears on /Am

. Ex p r e s s , In c., 49 0 U.S. 47 7, 4 84 (19 89 ))).

The Su pr em e Co ur t “ ha s rep eat ed ly la m en te d” “ [t]he carn ag e cau se d by dr un k dr iv ers ” an d th e “ tra gi c freq ue nc y ” wit h whi ch dr un k dr iv ers ap pe ar “ on ou r Nati on ’s hi gh way s.” Nev il le
, 45 9 U.S. at 55 8; se e, e.g ., McNe el y , 56 9 U.S. at

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 15 65 (p lu ral it y op in io n) ( “Wh i l e so m e pr og res s ha s be en m ad e, dr un k dr iv in g

-6

-co nt in ue s to ex act a te rri bl e to ll on ou r so ci et y .”); Brei th au pt v. Abr am , 35 2 U.S. 43 2,

4 3 9 ( 1 9 5 7 ) (“ The in crea si ng sl au gh te r on ou r hi gh way s, m os t of whi ch sh ou ld b e

av oi da bl e, no w reach es th e as to un di ng fig ur es on ly heard of o n t he ba tt le fie ld .”).

And whi le a bl oo d dr aw is un qu es ti on ab ly a “ se arch ” whi ch im pl ic at es im po rta nt “ ‘deep -ro ot ed ’” pr iv acy in te res ts , McNe el y , 56 9 U.S. at

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 15 58 (m ajor it y op in io n) (q uo ti ng W in st on v. Le e , 47 0 U.S. 75 3, 76 0 (1 98 5) ), th e Co ur t ha s “ sa i d al so th at th e in tru si on oc cas io ne d by a bl oo d te st is no t si gn ifi can t, si nc e su ch ‘test s are a co m m on pl ace in th es e da y s of pe rio di c ph y si cal ex am in at io ns

an d ex pe rie nc e wit h th em te ach es th at th e qu an ti ty of bl oo d ex tra ct ed is m in im al
, an d th at fo r m os t pe op le th e p r o c e du re in vo lv es vi rtu al ly no ris k, tra um a, or pa in .’ ” S k i nn er, 48 9 U.S. at 62 5 (q uo ti ng Sch m erb er v. Cal ifo rn ia
, 38 4 U.S. 75 7, 77 1 (1 96 6) ); se e, e.g ., Nev il le
, 45 9 U.S. at 56 3 (“ The si m pl e bl oo d- al co ho l te st is

. . . sa fe,
pa in le ss, an d co m

m onpl ac e. ”); Brei th au pt , 35 2 U.S. at 43 6 (“ The bl oo d te st pr oc ed ur e ha s be co m e ro ut in e in ou r ev eryday li fe.”)

. As “ a hi gh l y e f f e c t i ve m ean s of d e t erm in in g th e de gr ee to whi ch a pe rs on is un de r th e in flu en ce of al co ho l, ” Sch m erb er, 38 4 U.S. at 77 1, th e Co ur t ha s “ co nf irmed ‘soc ie ty’ s jud gm en t th at bl oo d

te st s do no t co ns ti tu te an un du ly ex te ns iv e im po si ti on on an in di vi du al ’s pr iv acy an d bo di ly in te gr it y ,’ ” Sk in ne r, 48 9 U.S. at 62 5 (q uo ti ng W in st on , 47 0 U.S. at 76 2)
, an d

reco gn iz es “ th at m ed ic al ly dr awn bl oo d te st s a r e r e as on ab le in ap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ces ,” McNe el y , 56 9 U.S

. a t

_ _ _ , 13 3 S. Ct

. at 15 65 (p lu ral it y op in io n)

. The d i s cu ss io ns of im

pl ie d co ns en t la ws in Nev il le an d in th e McNe el y pl ur al it y op in io n su pp or t th e co nc lu si on th at su ch “ ap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ces ” were pr es en t he re.

By ch oo si ng to “ dr iv e[]

. . . a m ot or ve hi cl e wit hi n [Mi nn es ot a],” W al l was de em ed by Mi nn es ot a la w to ha ve in it ia ll y “ co ns en t[e d]

. . . to a ch em ic al te st of [h er] bl oo d, br eat h, or ur in e fo r th e pu rp os e of de te rm in in g th e pr es en ce of al co ho l.” Mi nn

. St at

. § 16 9A.5 1, su bd

. 1( a). Co ns is te nt wit h Mi nn es ot a’s im pl ie d co ns en t la w, Dep ut y Ru ss et h on ly req ue st ed a flu id sa m pl e aft er W al l fai le d nu m ero us fie ld te st s,

-7

-in cl ud in g a pr el im in ary br eat h te st , gi vi ng Dep ut y Ru ss et h pr ob ab le cau se to su sp ect

W al l was dr iv in g whi le im pa ire d. See id

. § 16 9A.5 1, su bd

. 1( b) (4 ) (“ The te st m ay be
req ui red of a pe rs on whe n an of f i cer ha s pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th e pe rs on was dr iv in g [wh il e imp a i r ed ]

. . . an d

. . . th e sc reen in g te st

. . . in di cat ed an al co ho l

co nc en tra ti on of 0.0 8 or m or e.”). In req ue st in g W al l’s co ns en t, Dep ut y Ru ss et h read Mi nn es ot a’s im

pl ie d co ns en t ad vi s o ry , as ki ng W al l to de ci de be twee n co ns en t an d refu sa l and ex pl ai ni ng sh e co ul d fi rs t co ns ul t an att or ne y . See i d. § 16 9A.5 1, su bd

. 2( a).

“[T ]h e c h o ic e to su bm it or refu se to ta ke a bl oo d- al co ho l te st wil l no t be an

eas y or pl eas an t on e fo r a su sp ect to m ak e[, b ]ut the cri m in al pr oc es s oft en req ui res

su sp ect s an d de fen da nt s to m ak e di ffi cu lt ch oi ces .” Nev il le
, 45 9 U.S. at 56 4. W al l’s ch oi ce was un do ub te dl y di ffi cu lt in vi ew of th e pe na lt ie s of refu sa l, bu t th e im pl ie d

co ns en t pr oc ed ur e is an im po rta nt “ le ga l to ol []” st at es ha ve at th ei r di sp os al “ to

en fo rce th ei r dr un k- dr iv in g la ws an d se cu re BAC ev id en ce.” McNe el y , 56 9 U.S. at

__ _, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 15 66 (p lu ral it y op in io n)

. W al l’s dil em m a, al on e, do es no t sat is fy h e r b u r d en of nu ll ifyin g he r ot he rwis e un in hi bi te d co ns en t. See Der, 66 6 F.3 d a t 11 28

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON Fi nd in g n o F o u rth Am en dm en t vi ol at io n, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t i n t he co un ty’ s fa vo r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-