1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: OC TO BE R 25, 201 6 4 N O. 33, 718 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 LARESSAVA RGA S, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 Br ian a H . Z am or a, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Jacqueline R. M edina, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 Vicki W . Z elle, Assistant Appellate D efender 20 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 21 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} De fendant Laressa V argas appealed her conv i ct i o n in the m etropolitan cou rt 4 (tri al c ourt) f

or ag gr av at ed

dr ivi ng w hil e int oxi cate d ( D W I) , c ontrary to N MS A 197 8, 5 Se ct ion66- 8- 102( D )( 3) ( 2016 ), to the di st ric t co urt. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a ff irm ed the 6 tr ia l co urt’ s se nte nc ing or de r an d fi le d a m em or an dum op in ion. D ef

en dant n ow 7 appeals to this Court. D efendant challenges the sufficiency of t he evidence to supp ort 8 he r co nvi ct ion
. D ef

en dant a lso c ha lle nge s th e co nst itu tio na li ty of the a rr es tin g 9 of fi ce r’ s r eque st f

or ablo od t es t and ar gue s that ev ide nc e of he r re fu sa l to subm it to 10 a blo od t es t sh oul d have be ene xc lud ed
. 11 { 2} W e con clude that sufficient evidence suppo rted the trial court’ s finding that 12 De fendant wa s driving under the influence of i ntox icating liquo r and w as im paired 13 to the sli ght es t de gr ee . H ow ev er , in lig ht of the U nit ed St at es S upr em e Co urt’ s r ec en t 14 hol din g in B i r c h

f i e ld v . N o r th D a k ota ,

_ _ U
. S
.

__ , 13 6 S . Ct. 2 16 0 (2 01 6) , we 15 co nc lud e tha t D ef

en dant m ay not

be he ld c ri m ina lly

li ab le f or r ef usi ng t o su

bm it to 16 a warra nt le ss bl oo d t es t b as edon im pl ie d c on se nt . Id

. a t 21 85- 86. W e af

fi rm in part , 17 rev ers e in pa rt, a nd rem an d. 18 I. BACKGRO UND 19 { 3} O n Apr il 23, 2011 , the Be rn al ill o County Sh er if f’ s O ff ic e co nduc te d asob ri ety 20 checkpo i n t. D eputy

Patric k Rael of the B ernalillo CountySherif f’ s Of fice w as2

1 working t h e ch eckpoint and observed Def endant’ s vehicle, w hich was stopped 2 ap pr oxi m at el y

15 t o 20 y ar ds i n a dvanc e of the ch ec kpoi nt. D ep uty Ra el sig na le d to 3 D ef en dant t o pu ll fo rw ar d. D ef en dant r oll ed

dow n he r w ind owa nd s ai d, “ G ood 4 a f t e rn o o n , ” w h i c h D e p u t y R a e l f o u n do d ds i n c e i tw a s ap p r o x i ma t e l y 1 : 0 0 a . m. 5 D ep uty Ra el not ic ed

the odo r of

a lc ohol c om ing f

ro m the ve hic le a nd f

ro m 6 D ef en dant. D ep uty

Ra el a lso not ic ed

that D ef en dant a ppe ar ed ne rv ous an d c onf

use d, 7 an d tha t he r ey es w er e blo odsh ot an d w at er y . D ur ing the ir

ini tia l c ont ac t, D ef

en dant 8 de nie d c onsu m ing a lc ohol
. 9 { 4} D ep uty Ra el r eque ste d th at D ef en dant p er fo rm

f ie ld s obr ie ty

te sts ( FS T s) a nd 10 D ef en dant a gr ee d. W ith D ef

en dant outs ide of

the ve hic le , D ep uty

Ra el c ont inu ed

to 11 sm ell alcohol com ing from De fendant’ s person. D efendant p erfor m ed poorlyon each 12 of the FS T s. D ep uty Ra el be lie ve d th at D ef en dant c oul d no t sa fe ly

ope rate ave hic le 13 and Def

endant was placed under ar rest. De puty Rael testified that he read the I m plied 14 Co nse nt A ct

to D ef en dant, an d re que ste d that she sub m it to a

br eath t es t. D ef

en dant 15 then adm itted to havi ng consu m ed alcohol, and the breath test indicated that her 16 blo od a lc ohol c onc en tr at ion( BA C) w as . 04/
. 05. 17 { 5} Ba s e d o n D e f

e n d a n t ’ s p o o r p e r f

o rm a n c e o n t h e F S T s , D e p u t y R a e l didnot 18 believe the BA C results we re consi stent with h er level of i m pairm ent. Deputy

Rael3

1 re que ste d th at

D ef en dant al so subm it to a bl ood te st. D ef en dant i nit ia lly

a gr ee d to the 2 bloo d test, but later r efused. D efendant w as charged w ith aggravated DW I. 3 { 6} A f

t e r ab e n c h t r i a l , D e f

e n d a n tw a s c o n v i c t e do f

a g g r a v a t e dD W I
. D ef

en da nt 4 ap pe al ed

to the dis tr ic t

c ourt. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a ff irm ed D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion
. T his 5 ap pe al f

oll ow ed
. 6 II. DISC US SION 7 A. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e 8 { 7} “ [T ] he te st t o de te rm ine the suf fi cien cy of e vid en ce in N ewMe xic o . . . is 9 w he the r subs tanti al e vid en ce of e ith er adir ec t or

c ir cu m stanti al na tur e ex ist s to 10 supp ort a

ve rd ic t of

gui lt be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt w ithr es pe ct

to ev er y e le m en t 11 es se nt ia l t o a co nv ic ti on .” Sta te v . Sut phi n , 198 8- N MS C- 031, ¶ 21, 107 N
. M. 126 , 12 753 P. 2d 1 314. “ In re vie w ing the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , [ the appe llate c ourts] 13 m ust vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gui lty

ve rd ic t, ind

ulg ing a ll 14 re as ona

ble inf er en ce s and r es olv in g all c onf lic ts i n th e ev ide nc e in f av or of the 15 verdict.” St at e v. Cu nn in gh am, 200 0- N MS C- 009, ¶ 26, 128 N
. M. 711 , 998 P
. 2d 1 76. 16 { 8} In t he present case, De fendant argues t hat because th e State presented no direct 17 ev ide nc e of

im pa ir ed dr ivi ng, it

la ck ed suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to suppor t a ve rd ic t of 18 ag gr av at ed

D W I be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. S ec tio n 66 -8 -1 02( D )( 3) state s: 19 Agg rav at ed dr iv in g u nd er t he in flu en ce o f in to xi cat in g l iq uo r . . . 20 consist s of:4

1
. . . . 2 (3 ) re fu sin g to sub m it to chem ic al te sti ng, a s pr ovi de d f or in 3 the Im

plied Consent Ac t[, NMS A 197 8, §§ 66-8-105 to -112 (1978, as 4 am en de d th ro ugh 2015 )] , a nd i n the j udgm en t of the c ourt, ba se d up on 5 ev ide nc e of

int oxi catio n pr es en te d to the c ourt, the dr ive r w as und er the 6 in flu en ce o f in to xi cat in g l iq uo r[.] 7 Th e r e i s n o d i s p u t e t h a tDe f e n d a n tr e f

u s e dt o s ub mi t t o t h e b l o o dt e s t . Ac c o r d i n g l y, 8 the sol e que sti on i s whe the r subs tanti al ev ide nc e supp orts the tr ia l c ourt’ s c onc lus ion 9 that Def

endant was driving und er the influence of intox icating liqu or. 10 { 9} Inor de r to c onvi ct D ef en dant o f dr ivi ng unde r the inf lue nc e of int oxi catin g 11 liquor , the tr ia l c ourt m ust f ind tha t a s ar es ult

of dr ink ing li quor

D ef en dant w as “ le ss 12 ab le , e ith er

m en ta lly or phy sic al ly

or both, to ex er ci se the c le ar j udgm en t and s te ady 13 ha nd ne ces sa ry to ha nd le [a v eh ic le ] wit h s afet y to hi m se lf a nd th e p ub li c.” State v. 14 Sis ne ros , 193 8- N MS C- 049, ¶ 18, 42 N
. M. 500 , 82 P
. 2d 2 74 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 15 an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ); Sta te v . G urul e , 201 1- N MC A -0 42, ¶ 7, 149 N
. M. 599 , 252 P
. 3d 16 82 3 (s am e). “ Thi s st an da rd is kn own as th e im pa ire d t o t he sl ig ht es t d eg ree s ta nd ard .” 17 G urul e , 2011-NMC A- 042, ¶ 7 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 18 { 10} A t tri al , the S ta te pr es en te d e vid en ce that D ef en dant w as dr ivi ng the ve hic le 19 when it approached th e checkpoint after having consum ed alcohol. D eputy Rael 20 te sti fi ed

that D ef en dant w as in fa ct

dr ivi ng the ve hic le a ft er ha vin g c onsu m ing5

1 al co hol w he n sh e ap pr oa ch ed the c he ck

poi nt. Defen da nt e ve ntu al ly a dm itt ed to 2 co nsum ing a lc ohol a nd s ubm itt ed to a br eath te st, w hic h m ea sur ed he r BA C . 04/
. 05. 3 { 11} D ep uty

Ra e l t e s t i f

i e d th at D e f e n d an t w a s c onf use d, ha d bl oods hot , w at er y e y es , 4 an d sm el le d of

a lc ohol
. A cc or din g to D ep uty Ra el , D ef en dant w as una

ble to m ai nta in 5 he r ba lanc e an d w as una ble to fo llo whis ins tr

uc tio ns d urin g th e FST se que nc es . 6 D ep uty Ra el ad m in is ter ed

f our F ST se que nc es a nd D ef en dant w as not

able to 7 c o mp l e t e a n y o f

t h e m s u c c e s s f

u l l y. 8 { 12} W e h old that this evidence s uppo rts her con viction for driving while im paired 9 to the slig htest degree. See State v. Sparks , 198 5- N MC A -0 04, ¶ 6, 102 N
. M. 317 , 694 10 P. 2d 1 382 (d ef

ini ng s ubst an tia l e vid en ce a s tha t ev ide nc e w hic h a re as ona ble pe rs on 11 w oul d cons ide r ad equa te to suppo rt ade fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ion ); se e als o Sta te v . Ne al , 1 2 2 0 0 8 -N M CA -0 0 8 , ¶2 9 , 14 3 N.M . 3 4 1 , 1 7 6 P. 3 d3 3 0 (o b s er v i n g t h at t h e d ef en d an t ’s 13 unsatis fa ct or

y pe rf orm an ce on the F ST s, inc lud ing his f ai lur e to f oll owins tr

uc tio ns 1 4 an d h i s l a c k o f b a l a n c e , c o n s t i tu t e d s i g n s o f i n t o x i c a t i o n , w h i c h s up p o rt edhis 15 co nvi ct ionf

or dr ivi ng unde r the inf

lue nc e of int oxi catin g li quor ); Sta te v . Sot o , 200 7- 16 N MC A -0 77, ¶

¶ 32, 34, 142 N
. M. 32, 162 P. 3d 187 (hol din g that the re w as suf fi ci en t 1 7 ev ide nc e ofdr ivi n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e p u rs ua nt t o th e 18 im pa ir ed -t o- the -s lig hte st- de gr ee standard , e ve n th ough , a m ong oth er fac tor s, the 19 of fi ce rs obs er

ve d no ir re gul ar dr ivi ng w he n the de fe ndant “ ha d r ed , blo odsh ot, a nd6

1 w at er y e y es , a s w el l a s sl ur

re d sp ee cha nd a

ve ry str ong odor

of a lcoho l onhis 2 br eath[ , ] ” the de fe ndant a dm itt ed dr ink ing , the of

fi ce rs obs er

ve d se ve ra l e m

pty c an s 3 of beer where the def

endant had been, and the officers te stified that the defendant was 4 de fin it el y

in to xi cat e d ) , abro gat ed on o the r gr ound

s bySta te v . T

ollardo , 201 2- 5 N MS C- 008, 275 P
. 3d 1 10. 6 B. Im plied C onsent t o Subm it to Blood Te sting 7 { 13} D ef

en dant a lso ar gue s th at

e vid en ce of

he r re fu sa l t o take ablo od t es t sh oul d 8 have been su p p ress ed because, under the circum stances of this case, a com pelled 9 blo od t es t w as c onst itu tio na lly unr e a s o n a

ble und er both th e Fo urth A m en dm en t of the 10 U nit ed

S ta te s C onst itu tio n and A rt ic le I I, Se ct ion 10 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. 11 D ef en dant a lso c ha lle nge s th e co nst itu tio na lity of usi ng he r re fu sa l to subm it to the 12 bloo d test to aggravate her D W I char ge. 13 1. P re se rv at ion 14 { 14} T he S ta te a sse rt s th at D ef en dant f ai le d to p re se rv e the sup pr es sio n arg um en t 1 5 s h e n o w m ak es o n ap p ea l . Un d ert h e Ne w M ex i co Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e P ro ce du re , “ [t ]o 16 preserve a

question for r eview it m

ust appear that a ruling or decision by the district 17 co urt w as f

ai rl y inv oke d[.] ” Rule 12- 216( A ) N MR A
. D ef en dant s ugge sts that by 18 arguing for supp ression of the expanded search, she pre served the const i t ution al 19 as pe ct of the unr ea sona

bleness of

the se ar ch
. D ef

en dant f urthe r de cl ar es that the7

1 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r re que st fo r supp re ssi on w as ar uli ng f ai rl y inv oke d f ro m 2 the lower c ourt . D e f

e nd a nt d i d no td i r e c t l y

o r i nd i r e c t l y

a ss e rtt hi s c on st i tut i on al 3 principle in her appeal t o the district court nor did she provide the necessary fac tual 4 ba si s t ha t wo ul d a ll ow fo r th e d is tri ct co ur t to ru le on th e is su e. See State v. Gom ez , 5 1997 -N MS C- 006, ¶

22, 122 N
. M. 777 , 932 P
. 2d 1
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a ddr es s 6 the iss ue . A s ar es ult , D ef en dant h as f

ai le d to pr es er

ve he r ar gum en t f

or appe al
. 7 { 15} H ow ev er , w he re ade ci sio n by the dis tr ic t c ourt w as not f ai rly inv oke d ona 8 particular issue, an appellate court m ay still cons ider “ j urisdictio nal questio ns, issues 9 of general public interest, or m atter s invo lving fundam ental err or or fundam ental 10 rights of a

party .” Sta te v . H

arr iso n , 201 0- N MS C- 038, ¶ 10, 148 N
. M. 500 , 238 P
. 3d 11 869 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ); see Ru le 12- 216. Be ca use of the 12 unus ua l natur e of

thi s c as e w he re cr im ina l lia bil ity ha s be enim

pose d f or r ef usi ng t o 13 subm it to an un co nst itu tio na l r eque st and the U nit ed S ta te s Su pr em e Co urt havin g 14 de ci de d and e xpl ai ne d th e ap pli ca ble lawon thi s nove l iss ue , dur ing the pe nde nc y of 15 thi s a ppe al , w e w ill e xe rc ise our dis cr et ionto co nsi de r

wh e the r co m

pe lli ng D ef

en dant 16 to s ubm it to a

blo od t es t co ns titute s an il le ga l se ar chund er the F ourth A m en dm en t 1 7 b e c au s e “ f

r e e d o m fr o m i l l e g a l s e a r c h a n ds e i z u r e i s a f u n d a men t a l r i g h t ” t h a tmay, 18 in p art ic ul ar

c ir cu m stanc es , c om e w ith in the e xc ep tio n to the pr es er va tio n 19 req ui rem en t. Gom ez , 199 7- N MS C- 006, ¶ 31 n
. 4.8

1 2 . S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w 2 { 16} “ T he le ga lity

of ase arch
. . . ult im at el y tur ns o n th e que sti on o f 3 r e a so na

bl e ne ss. ” St ate v . R

yo n , 200 5- N MS C- 005, ¶ 11, 137 N
. M. 174 , 108 P
. 3d 4 1032
. Whil e thi s “ inquir y is ne ce ssari ly fa ct -b as ed it co m pe ls a c ar ef ul b al an ci ng o f 5 co nst itu tio na l va lue s, w hic h e xte nds be y ond fa ct -f ind ing , ” an d is the re fo re sub j ec t t o 6 de no vo rev ie w. Sta te v. R ow el l , 200 8- N MS C- 041, ¶ 8, 144 N
. M. 371 , 188 P
. 3d 9 5 7 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)
. 8 { 17} In the pr es en t ca se , D ef en dant adv an ce s ar gum en ts unde r the U nit ed S ta te s and 9 the N ew Mexi co Co nst itu tio ns, w hic h pr ovi de ove rl ap pin g pr ote ct ion s a ga ins t 10 un reas on ab le sea rch es an d s ei zu res . Gom ez , 1 9 9 7
- N M S C
- 0 0 6 , ¶ ¶ 19- 23. I n ana ly zi ng 11 whether challenged poli ce procedure s are unlaw ful, w e apply the int erstitial approach 12 se t f orth i n Gom ez , which requires that we first consider whether the United State s 13 Co nst itu tio n m ak es the c ha lle nge d pr oc ed ur es unlawfu l. Id

. ¶

19. “ If so, the f ru its 14 usuallym

ust b e s u p pressed as evidence. If not, we next consid er w hether the N ew 15 Mexico Constitu tion m akes the searc h unlawful.” R ow el l , 200 8- N MS C- 041, ¶ 12; 16 Gom ez , 199 7- N MS C- 006, ¶ 19. 17 3. R ea son ab le ne ss o f a W ar ra nt le ss B loo d Te st 18 { 18} U nde r the F ourth A m en dm en t, the re as on ab le ne ss o f a se ar chde pe nds “ on a 19 balance between t he publ ic i nterest and the indiv idual’s r ight to personal security fre e9

1 fr o m ar b i t ra ry i n t er fe re n ce b y l aw o ff i ce rs .” Stat e v. W

il li ams , 201 1- N MS C- 026, ¶ 10, 2 149 N
. M. 729 , 255 P
. 3d 3 07 (in te rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he 3 Fo urth A m en dm en t ex pr es se s a cl ear pr ef er en ce in favor

of obt ai nin g se ar chw ar

rants 4 pr io r to co nd uc ti ng a se arch
. Sta te v. W ill iam son , 2009 -N MSC- 039, ¶ 14, 146 N.M. 5 488, 212 P.3 d 376. Our Suprem e Court has stated that “ [a] ny warrantless sear ch 6 analy sis m

ust start w ith the bedrock princip le of both federal and state consti tutio nal 7 j ur isp ru de nc e tha t se ar ch es c ondu ct ed out sid e the j udi ci al pr oc es s, w ith out pr ior 8 approval b y ju d g e o r m agistrate, are pe r se unr ea sona ble , sub j ec t on ly to w el l9 delineated exceptions.” R ow el l , 200 8- N MS C- 041, ¶ 10 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 10 citation om itted). 11 { 19} A blo od a lc ohol te st is co nsi de re d “ a se ar chof ‘ pe rs ons’ [ , ] ” an d th er ef

or e fa lls 12 wit hi n t he am

bi t o f t h e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Sta te v . R ic he rso n , 197 5- N MC A -0 27, 13 ¶ 23, 87 N
. M. 437 , 535 P
. 2d 6 44. H ow ev er , va lid c onse nt t o ase ar chis am ong the 1 4 re co g n i ze d“ ex ce p t i o n s t o t h e w arra nt requirem ent.” St

atev . G ar nenez , 20 15 -NMCA15 022, ¶ 5, 344 P
. 3d 1 054. N ewMe xic o, li ke a ll state s, ha s so ught to co m ba t the e vil s 16 of drunk drivi ng byenacting the Im plied Cons ent Act, by which any one who operates 17 a m oto r ve hic le “ is d ee m ed to ha ve gi ve n c onse nt t o ac he m ic al te st t o de te rm ine 18 alcoholic content o f his breath, bloo d, or urine. ” In re M cC ain , 197 3- N MS C- 023, ¶

9, 19 84 N
. M. 657 , 506 P
. 2d 1 204; see § 66 -8 -1 07.10

1 { 20} The U nited States Suprem e Court has “ refe rred a pp ro v i n gly

to the general 2 concept of im

plied-consent laws that i m pose civil pen alties and evidentiary 3 consequences on m otorists who re fuse to com ply .” B irc hfi el

d , ___ U
. S. ___, 136 S
. Ct
. 4 2160 , 218 5; se e e. g. , M iss ouriv . M

cN ee ly , ___ U
. S. ___ , 133 S
. Ct
. 155 2, 156 5- 66 5 (2 013) (p lura li ty opin ion ); Sout h D ak ota v . Ne vi lle , 459 U. S. 553, 560 (198 3). 6 Re cently , the United State Suprem e Co u rt co n s i d er ed wh et h ercr i m i n al i zi n g a d ri v er ’s 7 refusal to su bm it to a chem ical test com ports with the Fourth Am endm ent standard 8 of reas on ab le ne ss . B irc hfi el d , __ _U.S._

__ , 13 6 S . Ct. 2 16 0, 2 17 3. B irc hfi el d w as a 9 co n s o l i d at ed ca s e w h er ei n t h re e d ef en d an t s ap p ea l ed fr o m

t h ei r r e s p ec t i v e D WI 1 0 c o n v i c t i o n s , o n e d e f

e n d a n ta r g u e dt h a th i s s ub mi s s i o n t o ab l o o dt e s tw a s i n v o l u n t a ry, 11 an oth er

de fe ndant ch al le ng ed

his c ri m ina l pr ose cu tio n f or r ef usi ng t o su

bm it to a 12 br eath t es t, an d athi rd de fe ndant c ha lle nge d hi s c ri m ina l pr ose cu tio n f or r ef usi ng t o 13 su bm it to a bl oo d t es t. Id

. a t 21 72. 14 { 21} Ina na ly zi ng whe the r a giv enty pe of se ar chis ex em

pt f ro m the w ar rant 15 re qui re m en t the Co urt a sse sse s “ on the one hand, the de gr ee to w hic h it intru de s up on 16 anind ivi dua l' s pr iva cy a nd, on the oth er, th e de gr ee to w hic h it is ne ed ed

f or the 1 7 p ro m o t i o n o f l eg i t i m at e g overnm ental interests.” Id

. a t 21 76 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 18 an d c itatio n om itt ed ); Ril ey v. Ca li fo rn ia , ___ U .S
. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2473 , 2484 (2014). 19 In B irc hfi el

d , the C ourt consid ered the im pact o f breath and bloo d tests on in divid ual11

1 pr iv acy int eres ts . B irc hfi el d , ___ U. S. ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2176-78 . T he B irc hfi el d court 2 de te rm ine d th at

blo od t es ts i m

pa ct ind ividu al pr iva cy

int er es ts t o asig nif

ic an tly 3 gr eat er d eg ree t ha n b reat h t es ts . Id

. at 2 17 8. B irc hfi el

d re co gni ze d that br eath t es ts, 4 w hic h ana ly ze air expe lle d ou t of the sub j ec t’ s lungs to d et er

m ine the BA C, do n ot 5 im pl ic at e si gn ifi can t p ri v acy con cern s. Id

. at 2 17 6- 77
. B irc hfi el

d not ed that i n 6 contrast to breath t ests, bl ood tests, are s ignificantly intrusiv e b ecause they “ require 7 pie rc ing the ski n and e xtr ac t[ ing ] apart of the sub j ec t’ s bo dy,” an d lea ve “ in the 8 hands of law enforcem ent authorities a sam ple that can be preserved and from which 9 it is pos sible to extract inform ation bey ond a sim ple BAC rea ding .” Id

. a t 21 78. 10 { 22} Co nsi de ri ng the gov er nm en t’ s and state s’ param ount int er es t in p re se rv ing the 11 safety of public h i g h way s, the Court ac knowledged the “ ‘ carnage’ and ‘ slaught er’ 12 caused by drunk driv ers. ” Id

. at 2 17 8- 79
. B irc hfi el

d em pha siz ed the im portanc e of 13 not on ly

“ neutralizing the threat posed bya drunk driver wh o h as al ready gotten 1 4 b e h i n d t h e w h e e l [ , ] ” b u t a l s o d e t e rr i n g d r u n k d r i v i n g “ s o s u c h i n d i v i du a l s m ak e 15 r e sp on si bl e d e c i si on s a nd d o no tb e c om e at hr e a tt o othe r s i n t he f i r st p l a c e . ” Id

. at 16 21 79
. B irc hfi el

d al so not ed tha t the state s’ int er es t in the e ff ic ie nt u se of

r es our ce s; 17 w oul d be hin de re d if

ase ar chw ar

rant w er e re qui re d for ev er y BA C t es t i nc ide nt t o 18 a d ru nkdri vi ng arre st . Id

. at 2 18 1- 82
.12

1 { 23} Ba lanc ing the sli ght im pa ct of br eath t es ts on ind ivi dua ls’ pr iva cy , a nd the 2 gr eat ne ed

f or BA C t es ting, Bir chfie ld de te rm ine d th at w ar rantl es s br eath t es ts 3 in ci de nt to dru nkdri vi ng arres ts are reas on ab le un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Id

. at 4 2184
. “ Be ca

use br eath t es ts are sig nif ic an tl y less intru siv e than bl ood te sts a nd i n 5 m ost cases am

ply serve law enforc em ent interests,” B irc hfi el d co nc lud ed

that br eath 6 te st s “ m ay

be ad m in is te red as a se arch in ci de nt to a la wfu l arres t fo r drun k d riv in g,” 7 bu t b lo od tes ts m ay

no t. Id

. a t 21 85. 8 { 24} B i r c h

f i e ld al so rej ected the idea that w arrantless bl ood tests can be j ustified 9 ba se d o n t he ge ne ral co nc ep t o f im pl ie d c on se nt laws
. Id

. a t 21 85- 86. T he 10 co nst itu tio na lity

of state s’ im

pli ed co nse nt la w s wa s not at issu e, an d the Court did 11 no t add res s th at is su e. Id

. at 2 18 5. Ho wev er, B irc hfi el d did address whether a driver 12 co ul d b e cri m in al ly liab le fo r refu si ng to su bm it to an im pl ie d c on se nt bl oo d t es t. Id

. 13 B irc hfi el

d reasoned t h at “ [t ]here m ust be a lim it to the consequ ences to which 14 m oto ri sts m ay be de em ed to hav e con se nte d by virtue of a de ci sio n to dr ive on p ubl ic 15 roads.” Id

. A p pl y in g t he Fo ur th Am en dm en t re as on ab le ne ss st an da rd , B irc hfi el d 16 co nc lud ed

“ tha t m oto ri sts c an not

be de em ed to hav e con se nte d to sub m it to a blo od 17 test on pain o f com

m itting a cr im inal offense. ” Id

. at 2186. In other w ords, a driver 18 m ay be deem ed to have consented to a warrantless bloo d test under a stat e im plied13

1 co nse nt s ta tut e, but

the dr ive r m ay

not be su bjec t to a cr im ina l pe na lty f or r ef usi ng 2 to su bm it to su ch a te st . Id

. 3 { 25} In the present case, because D efendant’ s DW I char ge by alc ohol wa s 4 ag gr av at ed

ba se d onhe r re fu sa l of aw ar rantl es s bl ood te st, ase ar chw hic h sh e 5 refu se d, ca nn ot be jus ti fie d on th e ba si s of im pl ie d c on se nt . Se e id. at 2176. Ne ither 6 the r ec or d no r the br ie fi ng i n th is c as e ind ic at es that D ep uty Ra el ’ s in tervie wof 7 De fendant, adm inistration of the FST s, and the breath test conducted by De putyRael 8 fa ile d to sa tis fy the St at e’ s int er es ts in ac qui ri ng ev ide nc e to e nf or ce it s dr unk dr ivi ng 9 law s a ga ins t D ef

en dant. A nd the S ta te ha s no t pre se nte d any inf orm at ionto sugg es t 10 tha t any

e xc ep tio n to the w ar

rant requ ire m en t w oul d have j ust if ie d aw ar rantl es s 11 se ar ch of D ef

en dant ’s bl ood. Cf

. M cN ee ly , ___ U
. S. a t __

_, 133 S
. Ct
. a t 15 67. 1 2 Ac co rd i n g l y, we c o n cl u d e D ef en d an twa s t h re at en ed wi t h an u n l aw fu l s ea rc h . We 13 furthe r co nc lud e tha t D ef en dant’ s r ef

usa l t o subm it to the se ar ch cannot be the ba sis 14 fo r ag gr av a t i n g h e r DW I se nt en ce. Se e B irc hfi el d , ___ U
. S. ___, 136 S
. Ct
. a t 21 86 15 (r ev er sin g th e de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ionw he re the S ta te pr es en te d no “ ca se -s pe ci fi c 16 inform ation to sugg est that the exigent circum stances exception would have j ustified 17 a w ar rantl es s [ blo od t es t] ” an d w he re the Co urt w as “ [u ] nable to se e an y oth er ba sis 18 on which to justify

a w arrantless test of [the defendant’ s] blood ”).14

1 CON CLU SION 2 { 27} For the foregoing r easons, we reverse De fendant's convictio n of ag gravated 3 DW I and rem and to the trial cou rt for resentencing on the charge of D W I, im paired 4 to the slig htest degree. 5 { 28} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
6 7 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e 8 WE CO NCUR:
9 10 MIC HAE L E. VIGIL, Ch ief Jud ge
11 12 MIC HAE L D . B US TAM AN TE, Judge