## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
J I M M I E M AR SHA LL,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. CO L UM BI A L E A R E GI ONAL HO SP I TAL; J AN E DO E, Nur s e ; CI TY O F H O B B S; T O N Y K N O T T , C apt ai n, D efen dan t s, W ALTER R OY E, Se r g e a n t ; RO DN EY P O R T E R , O fficer,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ants . N o. 05- 2173

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt for t he D i s t ri ct of

N ew M exi co ( D . C . N o. C I V - 99 - 13 63 LH / LC S)
E dw ar d R i cco, R odey , D i ckas on, Sl oan, A ki n & R obb, P. A . , A l buquer que, N ew M exico, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . R ober tJ . G or ence , G or ence & O l i ver os , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee. B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.2

HENR Y , C i r cui tJ udge.

C i t yof H obbs , N ew M exi co, pol i ce offi cer s R odneyPor t erand Ser geant W al t erPope, appea l a j ur yver di cti n favorof pl ai nt i ff J i m m i e M ar s hal l for vi ol at i on of hi s Four t h A m endmentr i ghtt o be fr ee of unr eas onabl e s ear ch and
se izu re . T h e o ffice rs d o n o t d isp u te th a t th e yv io late d M r. M a rsh a ll’s F o u rth A m endmentr i ght s w hen theyor der ed a w arr ant l es s , noncons ens ual bl ood t es tfor
an all eg ed m isde m ea n o r. N ev erthe less, the o fficers co n tend the d istri ct co u rt
err ed i n deny i ng t hei rpos t - ver di ctm ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw bas ed
o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity b e c a u s e n o c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d la w p re c lu d e d th e te s t. W e a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt. I . BA CK GR OUND A . F ac tual h ist o ry W e des cr i bed the fa ctual hi s t or yof thi s cas e – i ncl udi ng s om e of the t r oubl es of the C i t y ’ s pol i ce de par t m ent– i n Mars hal lv. C ol um bi a Lea R egi onal Hos pi t al , 3 4 5 F . 3 d 1 1 5 7 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ Ma rs h a ll I”):

O n D ece m ber 26, 1996, M r . M ar s hal l , an A fr i can- A m er i can sel f-em ploy ed electri ci an, w as dri ving his go l d T oy ota pi cku p i n H ob bs, N ew M exi co, w hen he not i ced a pol ice ca r parked byt he s i de of the r oad w i t h i t s l i ght s off. A ccor di ng t o M r . M ar s hal l, t he pol i ce offi cer–l at er ide nt i fi ed as O ffi cerR odneyPor t er–fol l ow ed hi s pi ckup fo r se v er al bl ocks
. W hi l e M r . M ar s hal l w as s t opped atan i nt er s ect i on w i t h hi s l eft
- tur n s i gnal bl i nki ng, O ffi cer Por t er pul l ed up al ongs i de the p ick u p a n d “ g a z [ e d ] in ten tlya t [ M a rsh a ll’s] fa c e ,” w h ich M a rsh a ll3

i nfer s w as for t he purpos e of as cert ai ni ng hi s r ace . O ffi cerP or t er c o n te n d s that M r. M arsh all fa il ed to stop at th e sto p sign , w h ich M r. M a rs h a ll d e n ie s . O fficer P o rt er the n ac ti v ated h is em erg en cyli g h ts, b u t M r. M a rsh a ll co n tin u e d to d riv e fo r m o re th a n tw o m il e s b e fo re c o m in g to a s t op at h is r es i dence
. M r . M ar s hal l cl ai m s t hathe eva ded the off i cer fors ever al m i l es beca us e he w as fea r ful t o s t op hi s vehi cl e o u tsi de of t he pr es ence o f w i t nes s es , on acc ountof the r eput at i on of the H obbs P o lice D e p a rtm e n t fo r ra c ist p ra c tice s. A t th a t ti m e , M r. M a rsh a ll d id n o t kn o w O fficer P o rt er a n d d id n o t hav e a n yinfo rm ati o n ab o u t him
. In t he cr i m i nal compl aint fil ed as a r es ul tof the i nci dent , O ffi cerPor t er s t at ed thatM r . M ar s hal l acc el er at ed t o 1 0 0 m il es perhour , dr ove th ro u g h a fo u r-w a ysto p , a n d w e a v e d f ro m lan e to lan e , w h ich M a rsh a ll deni es . H ow eve r, O ffi cerPor t erm ade no ment i on of thes e al l egat i ons i n t he affi dav it h e fi l ed i n t hi s cas e des cr i bi ng t he eve nt s of D ece m ber 26 , 19 96 , no r w ere theym enti on ed in D efen dan t s’ l at er pl eadings. O n t he s t r eetin fro n t o f M r . M ar s hal l ’ s r es i dence , t he tw o m en e m e rg e d f

ro m th e ir v e h icle s. O ffic e r P o r ter h a d d ra w n h is p isto l. H is fi r s t wor d s wer e t o a c c u s e M r . M a r s h a l l o f b e i n g o n c r a c k , w hi ch M arsha l l has cons i s t ent l ydeni ed. D efe ndant s have pr offe r ed no e v id e n c e in su p p o rto f th is acc u sati o n . O fficer P o rt er states tha t M r. M ar s hal l had the odorof al cohol on hi s br eath, w hi ch M ar s hal l does notdeny , s t at i ng t hat he had i m bi bed one dr i nk w i t h hi s br ot herA l fr ed. O ffi cerPor t erarr es t ed M r . M ar s hal l on var i ous char ges , i ncl udi ng t he t r a ffi c v i o l a t i o n , d r i v i n g u n d e rt h e i n fl u e n c e , a n d r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t . On t he w r i t t en ci t at i on for m , i n t he s pace fori ndi cat i ng t he gende ro f the p e rso n re c e iv in g th e c itatio n , O ffice r P o rte r w ro te “ B /M ,” p re su m a b ly m eani ng bl ack mal e. A ft er arr es t i ng M r . M ar s hal l , O ffi cerPor t erpr ocee ded t o s ear ch M ar s hal l ’ s t ruck. T he s ear ch r evea l ed a . 40 cal i berpi s t ol undert he d riv e r’s se a t (a p p a re n tlylaw f u l), an d O ffice r P o rte r c la im e d a lso to have found a s m al l amount of a “gr een l eaf y s ubs t ance , ” a co n te nt i on M ar s ha l l d e n i e s . M r . M a r s h a l l was t a k e n t o t h e c i t yj a i l , whe r e s ever al s o b r i e t yt e s t s we r e p e r fo r me d o n h i m. M r . M a r s h a l l p a s s e d t wo br eathal y zert es t s , buthad di fficultycompl et i ng t he r eci t at i on of the al phabet( t he “A B C t es t ”)
. T her e i s confl i ct i ng t es t i m onyaboutw hether the h o ri zo n tal g az e stym o sis t est w as a d m inist ere d , an d w h ethe r M r. M a rsh a ll p a ss e d th e fin g e r-n u m b e r te st.4 O ffi cerPor t er t hen t r ans por t ed M r . M ar s hal l t o t he C ol um bi a Lea R e g io n a l H o sp ital fo r b lo o d tes tin g . M r. M a rsh a ll c laim s h is req u e st to p u t o n h is s h o e s w a s re f u se d , d e s p it e th e w in ter w e a th e r, an d th a t h is s ocks beca m e s oaked w i t h ur i ne t hat had pool ed on t he back fl oorof the p o lice c a r. W h ile w a iti n g fo r S e rg e a n t R o y e to a rriv e a t th e h o sp ital, O ffice r P o rte r in ter ro g a ted th e h a n d c u ffe d M r. M a rsh a ll fo r o v e r tw e n ty m i nut es , agai n acc us i ng hi m of bei ng on cr ack. ( “I know y ou came fr om a cr ack hous e. Y ou m i ghtas w el l admi ti t , beca us e I know y ou w ent th e re to g e t so m e c ra c k .”) D u rin g th is in ter ro g a tio n M r. M a rsh a ll s t at ed thatt he bl ood t es tm i ghtt es tpos i t i ve form ar ij uana. Th e r e a f t e r , S e r g e a n tRo y e a n d Nu r s e I r i s Go a d e n t e r e d t h e r o o m. W hen N ur s e G oad appr oache d M r . M ar s hal l , he s aid, “M a’ am, y ou d o n ’th av e m yco n sen t oral or w ri tt en to tak e m yb loo d
. B u t i f y o u ’re goi ng- and I r athery ou nots t i ck me w i t h t hatneedl e. B u t if y o u ’re go g o i n g t o t a k e myb l o o d , I ’ m n o tg o i n g t o r e s i s t , bu ty o u d o n ’ th a v e my cons entor al orw r i t t en. ” A t thatpoi ntSer geantR oy e t ol d N ur s e G oad, “ G o -a h e a d a n d g iv e it t o h im . I’ll co n se n t.” M r. M a rsh a ll th e n h e ld h is handcuffed a r m s i n fr ont of hi m fort he bl ood t es t . T he r ecor d cont ai ns a “ c o n se n t fo rm ,” in iti a led b y O ffice r P o rte r, w h ich sta tes : “R e f u se d to sign. G ave ve rbal cons ent . ” Tw o vi al s of bl ood w er e t aken. T he l abor at or y t es t s s ubs equent l y found no evi dence of al cohol oro the r il lega l drugs , butr evea l ed the pr es ence of TH C , t he ac t i ve i ngr edi ent i n ma r ij u a n a , i n M a r s h a l l ’ s b l o o d s t r e a m. A ft ert he eve nt s i n t he hos pi t al , M r . M ar s hal l w as r etur ned t o t he j ai l , w her e he w as confi ned for s ever al hour s befor e hi s m ot herobt ai ned h is re lea se o n b a il. L a ter , h e w a s c h a rg e d in a c rim in a l co m p lain t w ith ( i ) pos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance ( m ar ij uana) , ( i i ) r es i s t i ng, ev ad ing o r ob stru cti n g a p o lic e o ffic e r, (i ii ) ne g li g en t use o f a firearm ( pos s es s i on w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed) , ( i v) r eckl es s dr i vi ng, ( v) runni ng a s t op s i gn, and ( vi ) dr i vi ng under t he i nfl uence . I n M ay1997, t he D A ent er ed a nol l e pr os equibeca us e the e vi dence obt ai ned i n t he ca s e had be en s uppr es s ed. T he r ecor d does notcont ai n anyfur t her infor m at i on about t hat p roceedi ng, ort he l egal bas i s fort he s uppr es s i on of the evi dence
. Id. at 11 6 1 (cit ati o n s o m itted). B . P r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y I n N ovember1999, M r . M ar s hal l fi l ed a § 1983 a ct i on i n fede r al di s t r i ct5

cour tagai ns tt he off

i cer s , t he pol i ce c hi ef, t he hos pi t al , and the nur s e w ho ad m inist ere d the b loo d test . In Ju n e 2 0 0 2 , the d istri ct co u rtg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm entfort he defendant s . I n Ma rs h a ll I, w e re v e rse d th e d istric t co u rt in p a rt, h o lding that crit ical qu esti o n s o f fac t r em aine d w ith resp ec t t o M r. M arsh all ’s E qual Pr ot ect i on, Four t h A m endment , and r el at ed s t at e- l aw cl ai m s agai ns tt he
o ffic e rs a n d th e C ity. Id. at1181. O n r emand, t he di s t r i ctcour thel d a bi fur cat ed tr i al
. I n t he fi r s tphas e of t he tr i al , w hi ch i nvol ved cl ai m s agai ns tt he off i cer s , t he j ur yr ender ed a s peci al
v erd ictin fav o r of

M r. M arsh all o n h is Fo u rth A m en d m en t cl aim ag ains t O fficers Por t erand R oy e. T he j ur yaw ar ded M r . M ar s hal l compensa t or ydamages of $90, 000 fr om bot h O ffi cerPor t erand O ffi cerR oy e, and puni t i ve damages i n t he
a m o u n t o f

$ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 a g a in s t O ffic e r P o rt e r a n d $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 a g a in s t O ffic e r R o y e . I n t he s econd pha s e, t he courtgr ant ed j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw t o t he C i t yon t he s upervi s or yand muni ci pal l i abi l i t ycl ai m s . Fol l ow i ng entr yof j udgm ent , t he off

i cer s fi l ed a r enew ed mot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw bas ed on qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on.

I I . DI S CU S S I ON T h e o ffice rs c o n ten d th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d w h e n it d e n ied th e ir p o stju d g m e n t m o tio n fo r j u d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w b a s e d o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity. T h eym aintain th at, at th e ti m e the yo rde red the n u rse to d raw M r. M arsh all ’sR u le 5 0 p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 1 R ul e 50. J udgm entas a M at t erof Law i n J ur yT r i al s ; A l t ernat i ve (c o n tin u e d ...) 6 blood ag ai nsthis w i l l , no cl earl yest abli shed law precl ud ed a w arr antl ess noncons ens ual bl ood t es t . H ence , t heyar gue thatt heyar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m u n i t y. A . St andar d of r evi ew W e revi ew de n ov o a d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of a m oti on for j ud gm ent as a m a tte r o f

la w . Esc u e v . N. O k la . C o ll. , 4 5 0 F .3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed thatqual i fi ed i m m uni t yembodi es “an ent i t l ement nott o s t and tr i al orfac e the otherbur dens of l i t i gat i on, condi t i oned on t he r es ol ut i on of the es s ent i al l yl egal ques t i on w hethert he conduc tof w hi ch th e p la in tiff

c o m p la in s v io la te d c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d la w .” Mitch e ll v . Fo rsy th , 472 U . S . 5 1 1 , 5 2 6 (19 8 5 ). 1. R ule 50(a) pre- verdi ctm oti on requi rem ents . W e begi n bys ua s pont e addr es s i ng one pr ocedur al hur dl e. A l t hough t he
o fficers raised the q u ali fied im m u n ityd efen se in their an sw er to M r. M arsh all ’s
am end ed co m plai nt, i n thei r m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent pr i or t o the fi rs t appea l i n t hi s cas e, and l at eri n t hei rpos t - ver di ctm ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t er of l aw underR ul e 50( b) ( 1) ( C ) , t he off i cer s appar ent l ydi d notr ai s e qual i fi ed i m m uni t y i n t hei r pr e- ver di ct R ul e 50( a) m ot i on, w hi ch i s a pr er equi s i t e t o a 1(
. . . cont i nued) 1 M ot i on forN ew T r i al ; C ondi t i onal R ul i ngs a ) J u d g me n ta s a M a t t e ro f L a w. ( 1) I f d u rin ga tria l b yjury a p a rt y h a s b ee n fu ll yh ea rd o n an issue an d there i s no l egal l ys uffi cientevi dent i arybas i s fora r eas onabl e j ur yt o fi nd fort hat par t yon t hati s s ue, t he courtm aydet er m i ne t h e issue ag ai ns tt hatpar t yand m a yg ra n t a m o tio n fo r ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law a g a in s t th a t p a r tyw ith r es pectt o a cl ai m ordefe ns e thatcannotundert he control l i ng l aw be m ai nt ai ned ordefe at ed w i t houta fa vor abl e fi ndi ng on t hati s s ue. ( 2) M ot i ons forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw may b e ma d e a t a ny t i me b e f o r e s u b m is s io n o

f th e c a s e to th e ju r

y . Su c h a mot i o n s h a l l s peci fy t he j udgm ent s ought and t he l aw and t he fac t s on w h ich th e m ovi ng p a rtyis e n tit led to th e ju d g m e n t. ( b) R enew i ng M ot i on for J udgm ent A ft er T r i al ; A l t ernat i ve M ot i on for N ew T r i al
. I f, foranyr eas on, t he cour t d o es n o t gr anta mot i on for j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw m ade a tt he cl o se o f al l t he evi dence , t he c o u rt is c o n sid e re d to h a v e su b m itt e d th e a c tio n to th e ju rysu bjec t to t he court ’ s l at erdeci di n g the l egal ques t i ons r ai s ed byt he mot i on. T he mo v a n tmay r e n e w i t s r eques tforj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw byfi l i ng a mot i on no l at ert han 10 day s aft er e n tr y of j udgm ent–and may al t ernat i vel yr eques ta new t r i al orjoin a m o ti on fora new t r i al under R u l e 5 9 . I n ru l i n g o n a r e n e w e d m o t i o n , t h e c o u r tm a y: ( 1) i f a ve r di ctw as r etur ned: ( A ) al l ow t he j udgm entt o s t and, ( B ) or dera new t r i al , or ( C) d i r e c te n t r yo f

j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 0 (a)-(b)(1) (em p h asis ad d ed ).

T he tr ans cr i ptof the off i cer s ’ pr e- ver di ctR ul e 50( a) m ot i on r eads as 2 foll ow s: (c o n tin u e d ...) 7 pos t - ver di ct m ot i on under R ul e 50( b)
. T he r enew ed mot i on underR ul e 50( b) 2(
. . . cont i nued) 2 I t hi nk the m os tI can t el l y ou i s t hatI r es pect ful l ydi s agr ee w i t h t he T enth C i r cui t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of Schm er berand i t s appl i cat i on of the fac t s of thi s cas e. I ’ m not s ur e t her e i s a w hol e l ot w e can do a boutt hat w ith th is c a se . T h e fa c ts h a v e n ’ t c h a n g e d , alth o u g h I w o u ld a d d th a t I t hi nk t hat t hi s C our t w oul d fi nd t hatbas ed upon the t es t i m onyand l ack o f c r e d i b i l i t yt h e r e o f

c o mi n g f

r o m t h e p l a i n t i ff, n o r e a s o n a b l e j ur or coul d fi nd t hatM r . M ar s hal l had hi s bl ood t aken a gai n s thi s w i l l and th a t h e d id n ’t v o lu n ta ri ly g iv e a s a m p le o f h is b lo o d
. . . . A nd w it h r es pectt o t he cl ai m agai ns tR odneyPor t er , agai n, t he su b sta n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e is s im p lyth a t if in th e li g h t m o st fa v o ra b le t o M r . M ar s hal l t hat he pul l ed up next t o hi m and l ooked athi m , agai n, I gu e ss I w o u ld h a v e to re sp e c tf u lly d isa g re e w ith th e T e n th C ir c u it i nt erpr et at i on. I t hi nk t hatno r eas onabl e j ur orw ould fin d t hati n and of it sel f, and t hat i s all he had , i s suffi ci ent t o v i t i at e t he p robable cause t hatR odneyPor t erhas t es t i fi ed t o that h e had fort he s t op s i gn v io la tio n s . A p le s ’ A p p . v o l. I II , a t 5 1 6 . 8 c a n n o t a s s e rt g ro u n d s fo r r e lie f n o t a s s e rt e d in th e o ri g in a l m o tio n . See Anders on
v. Uni t ed Tel
. C o. , 933 F. 2d 1500, 1503 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) ( us i ng t he “di r ect ed
v e rd ict” a n d “ju d g m e n t n .o .v .” n o m e n c latu re o f R u le 5 0 p rio r to its a m e n d m e n t in 1 9 9 1 ); McC ar dl e v. Haddad , 131 F. 3d 43, 51 ( 2d C i r . 1997) ( “I n s um , a pos t t r i al
m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw can pr oper l ybe made onl yi f, and t o t he ext entt hat , s uch a mot i on s peci fy i ng t he s ame gr ounds w as m ade pr i ort o t he
su b m iss io n o f

th e c a se to th e ju ry .”). “ T o h o ld o th e rw ise w o u ld b e in contr avent i on of the purpos es of R ul e 50( a)
. ” Mi l l e rv . Eby Rea l t y G r ou p LLC , 396 F. 3d 1105, 1115 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). T he pr ovi s i ons of R ul e 50( a) and ( b) t hus s er ve tw o purpos es : t hey9

“‘ pr ot ect [ ] t he Seventh A m endmentr i ghtt o t r i al byj ur y , and ens ur [e] t hatt he
o p p o sing p artyh as e n o u g h n o ti ce o f th e a ll eg ed erro r t o p erm itan att em p t t o cu re i tbefor e r es t i ng. ’ ” Id. ( quot i ng FSLICv. R eev es , 8 1 6 F . 2 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 8 (4th C ir
. 19 87 ))
. M r. M ars hall do es not m enti on this i ssue i n h i s r espon se bri ef be fore us,
a lth o u g h a t o ra l ar g u m e n t, co u n se l re m in d e d th e p a n e l th a t q u a lifie d im m u n ity
w a s n o t ra ise d u n til a f ter th e ju ryre a c h e d its v e rd ict. M r. M a rsh a ll’s fa ilu re to chal l enge the R ul e 50( b) m ot i on i n hi s br i ef s peci fi cal l yon t he gr ounds t hatt he i s s ue w as w ai ved byan i nadequa t e R ul e 50( a) m ot i on r es ul t s i n a w ai verof the is s u e . St at e Farm F i r e & C as . C o. v. Mhoon , 3 1 F . 3 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 4 n . 7 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ) ( s ta tin g th a t fa ilu re to ra is e a n is s u e in a p p e lla te b ri e f w a iv e s th e is s u e ). W e th u s p ro c e e d to q u a lifie d im m u n ity iss u e . 2. R evi ew of R ul e 50( b) pos t - ver di ctm ot i on. W e nextcons i derw hati m pactt he off i cer s ’ R ul e 50( b) m ot i on has upon our s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w . W h e r e , a s h e r e , d e fe n d a n t s “ a s s e r tq u a l i fi e d i m m u n i t y af t er u n d e rg o in g trial o n a § 1 9 8 3 c laim , a p o st-tria l g ra n t o f im m u n ityw o u ld still confe ra bene fi tbys hi el di ng t hem from anyl i abi l i t yfort he monet arydamages
aw ar ded byt he j ur y . ” A c e v e d o -G a rc ia v . Mo n ro ig , 35 1 F . 3d 54 7, 56 2 n . 6 (1st C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W e n o te th a t th is tw o -sta g e “ o rd e r o f p ro c e d u re is des i gned t o s par e a de fenda ntnotonl yunw arr ant ed l i abi l i t y , butunw arr ant ed demands c us t om ar i l yi m pos ed upon thos e defendi ng a l ong dr aw n outl aw s ui t . ” Wi ls on v. Layne , 526 U . S. 603, 609 ( 1999)
.10

M o re o v e r, w h e th e r a n a ss e rte d fe d e ra l rig h t w a s c lea rlye sta b lish e d a t a par t i cul art i m e s uch thata publ i c off i ci al w ho al l egedl yvi ol at ed the r i ghthas no qual i fi ed i m m uni t yfr om s ui ti s a mi xed ques t i on of l aw and fa ctw e r evi ew de
n o v o . S e e Mitch e ll , 4 7 2 U .S . at 5 2 8 ; C ru z v . C ity o f L a ra m ie , 239 F. 3d 1183, 1187 ( 10t h C i r . 2001)
. B eca us e the defendant s appea l fr om a deni al of qual i fi ed i m m uni t ym ot i on r ai s ed af t ert he j ur y ’ s ver di ct , t he evi dence i s “cons t rued i n t he l i ghtm os thos pi t abl e t o t he part yt hatpr evai l ed att r i al
. ” Iacobucc i v. B oul t er , 19 3 F . 3d 14 , 23 (1stC i r. 19 99 ). T hat i s, w e con si der w hethert he ev i den ce i s “so
one- s i ded thatdefe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o pr evai l as a mat t erof l aw ” on the
c o n s titu tio n a l c la im
. Hi l lv. McK i nl ey , 3 1 1 F .3 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 3 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). In th is p ro c e d u ra l p o stu re , “d e fe re n c e sh o u ld b e a c c o rd e d th e ju ry ’s d isc e rn ib le
r es ol ut i on of di s put ed fa ctual i s s ues . ” Id. W hen eva l uat i ng a cl ai m of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y , w e “mustfi r s tdet er m i ne w h e th e r th e p lain tiff

h a s a lleg e d th e d e p riv a tio n o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t at a ll, and i f s o, pr ocee d t o det erm i ne w hethert hatr i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed att he t i m e of the al l eged vi ol at i on. ” Wi ls on , 526 U . S. at609 ( quot i ng C onn v. G ab bert , 5 2 6 U . S . 2 8 6 , 2 9 0 (19 9 9 )). Fora cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o be cl ear l y es t abl i s hed, i t s cont our s m us tbe s uffi ci ent l y cl ear t hata r eas onabl e off i ci al w oul d under s t and thatw hat he i s doing v iolates t hatr i ght
. T hati s nott o s ayt hatan off i ci al act i on i s pr ot ect ed byqual i fi ed i m m uni t yunl es s t he veryact i on i n ques t i on has pr evi ous l ybeen he l d unl aw ful , buti ti s t o s ayt hati n l i ghtof p re -e x istin g law th a t u n law f u ln e ss m u st b e a p p a re n t.11

Hope v. P elz er , 536 U . S. 730, 739 ( 2002) ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks
o m itte d ). “I n di s cus s i ng t he degr ee of fac tual s i m i l ar i t yt hati s r equi r ed t o concl ude th a t th e law is c lea rlye sta b lish e d , the [ S u p re m e ] C o u rt [ h a s] n o ted th a t all th a t is
r equi r ed i s t hatpr i orcas e l aw pr ovi de ‘ fai rw arni ng’ t hatan off i cer ’ s conduct
w oul d vi ol at e cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T hus , ‘ offi ci al s can s t i l l be on not i ce that their co n d u ct vio lat es e stab li sh ed law ev en in n o v el fa ctua l ci rcu m stan ce s. ’” De n v e rJu s t i c e & P e a c e Co mm. , Inc. v. C i t y of G olden , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 2 3 , 9 3 2 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Hope , 5 3 6 U . S . at 73 9 -41 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). B . D epr i vat i on of an a ctual cons t i tut i onal r i ght I n eval uat i ng a qual i fi ed i m m uni t ydefe ns e, “the fi r s ti nqui r ym us tbe
w hethera cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw oul d have be en vi ol at ed on the fa ct s al l eged. ” Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 5 3 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 0 (2 0 0 1 ). W e n e e d n o t li n g e r o n th is th re sh o ld q u esti o n b ec au se th e d efen d an ts do n o t dispu te th at th ey“v iolated [ M r. M a rsh a ll’s] [ F ]o u rth [ A ]m e n d m e n t rig h ts b yfo rc in g h im a g a in st h is w ill to pr oduce a bl ood s ampl e. ” A pl t s ’ A pp. vol
. I , at166 ( D i s t . C t . O r der , fi l ed M ay 12, 2005) ; R epl yB r . at2. C . T he cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Si nce the j ur yfound a vi ol at i on of M r . M ar s hal l ’ s Four t h A m endmentr i ght t o be fr ee f

r om unr eas onabl e s ear ches , w e nextcons i derw hethert he r i ghtw as c lea rlye sta b lish e d a t th e tim e o f th e in c id e n t. F irst, th e o ffice rs ta k e e x c e p tio n to12

th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t itw a s c lea rlye sta b lish e d th a t a n o n c o n se n su a l
w arr antl ess bl oo d tes tfor a m i sdem eano r offense, con du ct ed u po n p robable cause buti n vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw , fel l out s i de the exi gentci r cumst ance s exce pt i on r ecogni zed i n t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Sc h m e rb e r v . C a lif o rn ia , 38 4 U. S. 757 ( 1966)
. Speci fi cal l y , t heycont end thatw hen thi s cas e ar os e, ( a) t he l aw w as uns et t l ed as t o w hethervi ol at i on of a s t at e l aw barr i ng noncons ens ual bl ood t es t i ng w oul d al s o amount t o a vi ol at i on of the Four t h A m endment ; and ( b) t he l aw di d notcl ear l yi ndi cat e thatcl as s i fi cat i on of a dr i vi ng undert he i nfl uence ( “D U I ”) offe ns e as a mi s demeanorw oul d pr ecl ude a f i ndi ng of exi gent
c irc u m sta n c e s to su sta in a w a rra n tles s b lo o d tes t. 1 . E x igen t ci rcu m stan ce s u n d er Schm er ber v . C a lif o rn ia I ndeed, as t he Supr eme C our thas not ed, i ti s cl ear l yes t abl i s hed thatbl ood te s ts c o n s titu te s e a rc h e s u n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. Schm er ber , 384 U . S. 757, 7 6 7 -68 (19 6 6 ); Ma rs h a ll I, 345 F. 3d at1171- 72; An th o ny v . Ci t y o f N. Y. , 339 F. 3d 129, 142 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Schm er ber ); E l l is v. C i t y of San D i ego , 176 F. 3d 1183, 1191 ( 9t h C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng Schm er ber )
. I n Schm er ber , the C o u rt emphasi zed thatt he “ove r r i di ng funct i on of the Four t h A m endmenti s t o pr ot ect per s onal pr i vacyand di gni t yagai ns tunw arr ant ed i nt rus i ons byt he St at e. ” 384 U .S . at 7 6 7 . S im ilarly , “w a rra n tles s c o m p u lso ryb lo o d tes ts a re u n re a so n a b le unl es s s uppor t ed bybot h [1] pr obabl e ca us e and [2] exi gentci r cumst ance s . ” E llis , 176 F. 3d at1192 ( r equi r i ng a s ear ch w arr ant“abs entan emer gency ”) ( ci t i ng13

Schm er ber , 3 8 4 U .S . at 7 6 8 -7 0 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); Ma rs h a ll I, 345 F. 3d at1171- 7 2 . B ec au se p rob ab le ca u se is n o t i n q u esti o n , o u r fo cu s is on the latt er fac tor, t he r equi r ement of an e m er gency , orexi gentci r cumst ance . I n Schm er ber , t he pol i ce a r r es t ed the defendantfordr i vi ng undert he influen ce o f a lcoh o l. 3 8 4 U . S . at 75 8 . “A lth o u g h u lt im atelyp rose cu ted fo r a m isd e m e a n o r, h e w a s s u bjec t to p ro se c u tio n fo r a fe lo n yb e c a u se o f th e inju ryto t he pas s enger . ” Ma rs h a ll I, 345 F. 3d at1172. T her e w as no ques t i on t he pol i ce h a d p ro b a b le c a u s e to a rr e s t M r. S c h m e rb e r. Schm er ber , 3 8 4 U . S . at 75 8 -59 . M r. S c h m e rb e r r e f

u s e d th e p o lic e re q u e s t to s u b m it to a b re a th a lyze r t e s t. Id
. at765
n. 9. T hus , t he pol i ce ha d onl yone w ayt o obt ai n t he nec es s aryevi dence , a bl ood tes t. T h e p o lice th e n c o m p e lled th e d e fe n d a n t, ov e r h is o bjec tio n s a n d w ith o u t a
w a rra n t, t o p ro v id e b lo o d sa m p les to d e ter m in e th e p e rc e n tag e o f a lco h o l in h is b lo o d
. Id. at759. T h e C o u rt n o ted th a t “th e p e rc e n tag e o f a lco h o l in th e b lo o d b e g in s to di m i ni s h s hor t l yaft erdr i nki ng s t ops , as t he bodyfunct i ons t o el i m i nat e i tfr om t he s y s t em. ” Id . at 7 7 0 . B e c a u se th e p e rc e n tag e o f a lco h o l in a p e rso n ’s b lo o d is
evane s cent , t he C our tnot ed thatundert he “s peci al fac t s ” of the ca s e, “ther e w as no t i m e t o s eek outa magi s t r at e and s ecur e a w arr ant ” befor e the bl ood al cohol le v e l h a d d im in is h e d
. Schm er ber , 3 8 4 U .S . at 7 7 0 -7 1 ; Ma rs h a ll I, 345 F. 3d at 1172. B eca us e the “de l aynece s s aryt o obt ai n a w arr ant. . . t hr eat ened the d e s tru c tio n o f

th e e v id e n c e ,” th e C o u rt u p h e ld th e w a rr a n tle s s s e iz u re o f b lo o d
.14

Schm er ber , 384 U . S. at770. Fur t her , i n del i neat i ng t he “s peci al fac t s ” orexce pt i ons t o t he w arr ant
re q u ire m e n t, w e h a v e p o in ted o u t th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt
re a c h [ e d ] t h is ju d g m e n t o n ly o n t h e fa c ts o f [ th a t s p e c ific ] r e c o rd
. The in teg rity o

f a n in d ivid u a l’ s p e rs o n is a c h e ris h e dv a lu e o f o u r s o c iety . T hatw e t oday[h] ol d t hatt he C ons t i tut i on do es n otforbi d t he St at es mi nori ntr us i ons i nt o an i ndi vi dual ’s body unders tr i ngent l y l i m i t ed condi t i ons i n no w ayi ndi cat es t hati tperm i t s . . . i nt rus i ons underot her con dit i on s. Ma rs h a ll I, 345 F. 3d at1173 ( quot i ng Schm er ber , 3 8 4 U .S . at 7 7 2 ) (e m p h a sis
a d d e d ); see a lso Skinn er v . Ry. L a b o r Exe cu ti ve s’ A ss’n , 489 U . S. 602, 616 ( 1989) (“ In lig h t o f

o u r so c iety ’s c o n c e rn fo r th e se c u rityo f o n e ’s p e rso n , . . . it i s obvi ous t hatt hi s phy s i cal i nt rus i on, penetr at i ng benea t h t he s ki n, i nfr i nges an expec t at i on of pr i vacyt hats oci etyi s pr epar ed t o r ecogni ze a s r eas onabl e. T he
ens ui ng chemi cal anal y s i s of the s ampl e t o obt ai n phy s i ol ogi cal dat a i s a furt her in v a sio n o f

. . . p riv a c yin ter e sts .”) ( c itatio n s o m itt e d ); C al i f or ni a v. A cev edo , 500 U . S . 56 5 (199 1) ( st at i ng t hat “‘ sear ches co nd ucted ou t si de the j ud i ci al process, w i t houtpr i orappr oval byj udge orm agi s t r at e, ar e pers e unr eas onabl e undert he Four t h A m endment
- s ubj ectonl yt o a fe w s peci fi cal l yes t abl i s hed and
w el l
- del i neat ed exc ept i ons ’ ”) ( quot i ng Mi ncey v. A r iz ona , 437 U . S. 385, 390 (1 9 7 8 ))
. T h e o ffice rs a rg u e th a t a r e a so n a b le o ffice r in 1 9 9 6 c o u ld h a v e re a so n a b ly under s t ood t hata w arr ant l es s bl ood t es tper for m ed undert he exi gent15

ci r cumst ance s as des cr i bed i n Sch m erber w o u ld n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m endment , even i f the bl ood t es tw as conduct ed i n vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw . A tt he t i m e of the off

i cer s ’ conduct , how ever , i tw as w el l
- s et t l ed that“the s cope of a w arr ant l es s s ear ch mustbe comm ens ur at e w i t h t he r at i onal e thatexce pt s t he
s ear ch fr om t he w arr antr equi r ement . ” C upp v. Mur phy , 412 U . S. 291, 295 ( 1973)
. T hus , w i t h r es pectt o t he exi gencyexce pt i on, t he C our thad r ecogni zed t he “e xi gencyexce pt i on perm i t s w arr ant l es s s ear ches onl yt o t he ext entt hat exi gencyexi s t s . ” Ski nner , 489 U . S. at643 ( ci t i ng C h im e l v. C a lif o rn ia , 39 5 U. S. 7 5 2 , 7 6 1 -6 4 (1 9 6 9 ))
. T h e e x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s th a t ju stified th e sta te’ s b o d ilyin tru sio n in Schm er berar e notpr es enti n t he i ns t antcas e. U nl i ke the def endanti n Schm er ber
w h o re f u se d a b re a th a ly z e r te st, M r . M ar s hal l s ubm i t t ed t o two breat haly zer t est s. T he r es ul t s of ea ch w er e nega t i ve. T he r es ul t s fr om t he br eathal y zert es t s and a bl ood t es tar e of “ s i m i l arevi dent i aryval ue, ” and the off i cer s do notar gue o th e rw is e . Nels on v. C i t y of Ir vi ne , 143 F. 3d 1196, 1207 ( 9t h C i r . 1998)
. W hen a
s us pecthas t aken a n “al t ernat i ve t es tof equa l evi dent i aryval ue, t he r i s k t hat evi dence w i l l be l os tdi s appea r s and the exi gentci r cumst ance t hatexcus ed the po l i ce from ob t ai ning a w arr ant l i kew i se di sappea rs , renderi ng a w arr antl ess noncons ens ual bl ood t es ti n s uch ci r cumst ance s uncons t i tut i onal
. ” Id. T he fa ct t hat M r. M ars hall had al readypassed t w o b reathaly zer t est s m akes t he o ffi cers ’ d ec isi o n to p erfo rm a w arran tl ess n o n co n sen su al blo o d testall the m o re16

u n re a s o n a b le
. I n s um , w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatt he off i cer s had fa i rw arni ng of exi gentci r cumst ance s r equi r ementunderfede r al l aw . A pl t s ’ A pp. vol
. I , at166- 67 (D i st . C t . O rder , fi l ed M ay12 , 20 05 ) ( “[I] tshou l d h ave b een cleart o these
o fficers tha t th eir co n d u ct w as u n law fu l i n this case
. ”).

a. N ew M exi co’ s i m pl i ed cons entl aw A s Ma rsh a llI concl uded, i ti s appr opr i at e t o l ook t o s t at e l aw t o det er m i ne t he r eas onabl enes s of a s ear ch forFour t h A m endmentpurpos es . 345 F. 3d at1173 ( char act er i zi ng M r . M ar s hal l ’ s ar gum entas cont endi ng t hat“s t at e l aw does not authori ze N ew M exico po l i ce t o co m pel a bl oo d tes ti n a m i sdem eano r cas e in v o lv in g n o p h y sic a l inju ry. . . . ” ); s ee Tenn. v. G ar ner , 471 U . S. 1, 15- 16 (1 9 8 5 ) (“ In e v a lu a tin g th e re a so n a b len e ss o f p o lice p ro c e d u re s u n d e r th e F o u rth A m en d m en t, w e h av e a lso loo k ed to p rev ail ing rules in in d ividu al j u ri sd ict ion s. ”); Uni t ed Stat es v. R i char ds on , 86 F. 3d 1537, 1544 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( s t at i ng t hat fe d e r a l c o u r t s a r e t o “ c o n d u c ta n i n d e p e n d e n ti n q u i r y. . . a p p l y [ i n g ] fe d e r a l l a w” i nt o t he r eas onabl enes s of a s ear ch, and not i ng t hatfede r al cour t s “ar e not pr ohi bi t ed fr om cons i der i ng s t at e l aw ”) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. I n St at e v. R i chers on , 53 5 P . 2d 64 4, 64 8 (N
. M . C t . A pp . 19 75 ), t he N ew M exico C ou rtof A pp eal s, ci t i ng Schm er ber , h eld th at ex igen t ci rcu m stan ce s m u st be p rese n t fo r a w arr antl ess bl oo d tes tt o fall w i t hin the F ou rth A m end m ent’ s param et ers : t he w arr ant l es s s ear ch of the defendantw as j us t i fi ed beca us e, ( a) i tw asA s w e not ed i n Ma rs h a ll I, “[s ] i nce M r . M ar s hal l ’ s arr es t , t he s t atut e has 3 been s l i ght l ym odi fi ed. T he cha nges , how ever , have no be ar i ng on t he i s s ue ra is e d b yth is c a s e . See N . M. S TAT . A NN . § 66- 8- 111( A ) ( M i chi e, L E X I S t hr ough (c o n tin u e d ...) 17 m a d e in c id e n t to a la w f u l a rr e s t, ( b ) p la in tiff

s m e lle d o f

liq u o r, and( c) t he pol i ce offi ce r w as conf r ont ed w i th an em ergency due t o t he p r o g r e s s i v e d i m i n u t i o n o f t h e b l o o d a l c o h o l l e v e l d u r i n g t h e t i me in ter v a l in c id e n t n e c e ss a ryto o b tain a se a rc h w a rra n t. Id. (em ph asi s added ). A ssum i ng t he p res ence o f factor s ( a) and (b), l aw ful arres t
a n d th a t M r. M a rsh a ll h a d a lco h o l o n h is b re a th , w e h o ld th e o ffice rs a re u n a b le to e s ta b lis h th e p re s e n c e o f a n e m e rg e n c y . T he off i cer s ar gue thatN ew M exi co l aw w as farfr om cl earas t o w hetheror nota s ear ch ors ei zur e conduc t ed i n vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw w oul d al s o i nfr i nge the Four t h A m endment
. N ew M exi co’ s s t atut es ar e uni quel ycl earaboutt he r i ghtat i s s ue. Pur s uantt o N . M . St at . A nn. § 66- 8- 105 ets eq . ( M i chi e 1998) ( “N ew M ex ico Im p li ed C o n sen t A ct”), I f a pe r s on underarr es tfor v iolati o n of an offens e enumer at ed i n t he M ot orV ehi cl e C o d e . . . r efus es upon r eques tof a l aw enfor cement offi cert o su b m it t o chemi cal t es t s des i gnat ed byt he l aw enfor cement agenc yas pr ovi d ed i n s ect i on 66- 8- 107 N M SA 1978, none s hal l be admi ni s t er ed exc ept w hen a m uni ci pal j udge, m agis tr at e or d ist r i ct j udge is sues a search w arrant aut ho rizi ngchem i cal t ests a s p ro v id e d in s ect i on 66- 8- 107 N M SA 1978 upon hi s fi ndi ng i n a l aw enfor ceme nt offi cer ’ s w r i t t en aff

i davi tt hatt her e i s pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatt he per s on has dr i ven a mot orvehi cl e w hi l e undert he i nfl uence of al cohol o r a con t rol l ed sub st ance, therebycausi ng t he d eat h o r gr eatb o d ily injuryo f a n o ther p erso n , o r ther e is pr obabl e caus e t o bel i eve thatthe p e rs o n h a s c o mm i t t e da f e l o ny w h il e undert he i nfl uence of al cohol or a contr ol l ed s u b stan ce and thatchem i calt es ts as pr ovi ded i n s ect i on 66 -8-1 07 N

MSA 1978 w i l lpr oduce m at er i alevi dence i n a f el ony pr os ecut i on. 3(
. . . cont i nued) 3 2 0 0 3 S ess.). 18 Id. § 66- 8- 111( A ) ( emphasi s added)
. A s w e poi nt ed outi n Ma rs h a ll I : T he s t atut e des cr i bes t w o s cena r i os underw hi ch a m agi s t r at e ca n i s s ue a w a r r a n t fo r c h e m ica l tes ts, in c lu d in g a b lo o d tes t: (i) u p o n p ro b a b le caus e t o bel i eve tha t a per s on has dr i ven w hi l e undert he i nfl uence of al cohol ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance an d h as t her ebycaus ed the dea t h or g rea t bo d il yinjuryo f a n o ther p erso n ; and (i i) u p o n p ro b a b le c a u se to bel i eve thatthe pe rso n has com m i t t ed a f el ony w hi l e undert he in flu e n c e o f

a lco h o l o r a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e a n d th a t ch e m ica l tes ts w i l l pr oduce m aterial evi dence i n a fe l onypr os ecut i on. U nderN ew M exi co l aw , t he dr i ver ’s licens e of a per s on arr es t ed fordr i vi ng under th e in flu e n c e m a y b e re v o k e d if h e re f u se s to su b m it t o a c h e m ica l tes t.

. . . B u t if th e su b

jec t r e fu se s to su b m it to th e tes t, th e sta tu te ex p re ss ly f or bi ds the pol i ce f

r om adm i nis t er i ng i tw i thouta w ar r ant . 3 4 5 F . 3 d at 11 7 3 -74 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e o fficers co n tend that, d esp it e the N ew M ex ico Im p li ed C o n sen t A ct’s ad m o n it ion s, N ew M ex ico law w as u n clea r as to w h ethe r th e w arran tl ess s eizu re of b l oo d co uld vi olat e a defend ant’ s c o n stitu tio n a l r i ght s . T heyci t e St at e v. S tee le fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t “c o m p u lso ryb lo o d tes ts d o n o t v io late
cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” A pl t s ’ B r . at26 ( quot i ng S ta te v . S tee le , 601 P. 2d 440, 441 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 1979) ( ci t i ng Sch m erber, 3 8 4 U .S . 7 5 7 (1 9 6 6 ))
. S tee le i nvol ved
a n a r r e s t e e s u s p e c t e d o f c o m m i t t i n g v e h i c u l a rh o m i c i d e , a fe l o n y. I m p o r t a n t l y, S tee le i nvol ved the admi s s i on of the r es ul t s of a bl ood t es ti nt o evi dence , im p lic a tin g F if

th A m e n d m e n t s e lf-i n c ri m in a tio n c o n c e rn s . Schm er berhel d t hat t he compul s or yadmi ni s t r at i on of a bl ood t es tand admi s s i on i nt o evi dence t he19

tes t’s re su lts d o e s n o t im p lica te th e F if th A m e n d m e n t, 38 4 U .S . at 7 6 1 , “it p lain ly in v o lv e s th e b ro a d lyc o n c e iv e d re a c h o f a se a rc h a n d se izu re u n d e r th e F o u rth A m endment
. ” Id. at 76 7 . T h u s the N ew M ex ico C o u rto f A p p ea ls, d esp it e the re being no F i ft h A m end m ent pr oh i bit i on againstt he u se of t he ch em i cal analy si s, w as cons t r ai ned byt he N ew M exi co I m pl i ed C ons entA ct , not i ng t hat“cons entof t he offendi ng dr i verm us tbe obt ai ned befor e bl ood t es tr es ul t s m aybe i nt r oduced i n a tr i al char gi ng a cr i m i nal actr es ul t i ng fr om dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed. ” 601 P . 2 d at 44 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he sole excepti on t o thi s consen trequi rem ent i s a w a rr a n t s u p p o rt e d b yp ro b a b le c a u s e . Id
. N o s uch w arr antw as i s s ued i n t he i ns t antcas e. M or eover , pur s uantt o t he N ew M exi co I m pl i ed C ons entA ct , “no s ear ch w arr antcoul d l aw ful l yhave be en obt ai ned t o compel a t es tof M r . M ar s hal l ’ s bl ood” bec aus e M r . M ar s hal l w as not
s u s p e c te d o f

h a v in g c o m m itte d a fe lo n y . Ma rs h a ll I, 345 F. 3d at 1 1 7 4 ; s ee N ew M e x i c o I mp l i e d Co n s e n tAc t§ 6 6
- 8
- 1 1 1 ( A) ( r equi r i ng “pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve t hatt he per s on has comm i t t ed a f el ony ” b e fo re is s u a n c e o f a w a rr a n t)
. T he off i cer s al s o ci t e t o St at e v. W yr os t ek , 767 P. 2d 379 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 1 9 8 8 ). W

yr os t eks t at ed that“[b] eca us e [the off i cer ] had pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve W yr os t ek w as undert he i nfl uence of i nt oxi cat i ng l i quor , and bec aus e of the
evane s centnatur e of bl ood- al cohol l evel s , t he tr i al cour tfound thatexi gent ci r cumst ance s j us t i fi ed the w arr ant l es s s ei zur e of bl ood. T hus , no cons t i tut i onal i s s ues ar e r ai s ed byt hi s cas e. ” Id
. at380.T h e N e w M e x ico ’s I m p lied C o n se n t A c t sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 4 A ny p e r s o n who i s d e a d , u n c o n s c i o u s o ro t h e r wi s e i n a c o n d i t i on r ender i ng hi m i ncapa bl e of r efus al , s hal l be d eem ed nott o have w i t hdr aw n t he conse nt pr ovi ded by Sect i on 66- 8- 107 N M SA 1978, and t he t es t o r tests des i gnat ed byt he l aw enfor cementoffi cerm aybe admi ni s t er ed. § 66- 8- 108. 20 W yr os t eki nvol ved a ve r ydi ffe r ents etof fa ct s . T he W yr os t ekinq u iry c o n sid e re d w h e th e r th e N e w M e x ico Im p lied C o n se n t A c t re q u ire d a n o ffice r to
arr es tan uncons ci ous dr i verbefor e admi ni s t er i ng a bl ood t es t . B eca us e the defe ndant ’ s fr eedom of act i on w as al r eadyr es t r i ct ed as he w as uncons ci ous , t he
cour tdet erm i ned thatan arr es tw oul d have be en a “ us el es s act . ” Id. at 3 8 1 . U nl i ke M r . M ar s hal l , t he dr i veri n W yr os t ekw as i ncap able und ergoi ng t he les si nt rus i ve br eathal y zert es t . R eas oni ng t hatdefe ndant ’ s uncons ci ous s t at e di d not
w ith d raw h is co n sen t u n d er the N ew M ex ico Im p li ed C o n sen t A ct the c o u rt 4
c o n c lu d e d th a t th e o ffic e rs w e re ju s tifie d in th e ta k in g o f th e b lo o d te s t. Id
. N o one di s put es thatM r . M ar s hal l ’ s r efus al t o s ubm i tt o a bl ood t es tput h im in v iolati o n o f N ew M ex ico’s im p li ed co n sen t l aw an d that h is driver’s lice n se c o u ld b e su sp e n d e d a s a re su lt. A s w e d isc u ss e d w ith re g a rd to Schm er ber , w her e, as her e, pol i ce c oul d and di d us e an a l t ernat i ve, l es s i nt rus i ve, m eans of t es t i ng bl ood- al cohol cont ent , a bl ood t es ti s notnece s s aryand ca nnot b e ju stified b ye x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s. T h e o ffice rs n e e d e d so m e th in g m o re to j us t i fya bl ood t es taft erM r . M ar s hal l ’ s vol unt arys ubm i s s i on t o t w o br eathal y zer21

te s ts . See Ri chers on , 535 P. 2d at648 ( r equi r i ng t hatt he off i cerbe “c onfr ont ed
w ith an em erg en cy ”); Ham m er v. G ross , 9 3 2 F . 2 d 8 4 2 , 8 5 4 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 1 ) (“If th e g o v e rn m e n t is g o in g to u se fo rc e to p in so m e o n e to a c h a ir, stick a n e e d le in h is a rm a n d d ra in b lo o d f ro m h is v e in , ag a in st h is w ill a n d d e sp ite h is acqui es cenc e i n an effec t i ve al t ernat i ve [he r e, a br eathal y zert es t ] i thad bett er h a v e a re a s o n .” ) ( K o z in s k i, J ., c o n c u rr in g in p a rt a n d d is s e n tin g in p a rt ).

b
. T h e e ffe c to f

Ne w M e x i c o ’ s c l a s s i fi c a t i o n o f a DUI offe ns e as a mi s demeanor N ext , t he off

i cer s cont end thatt he l aw w as notcl ear l yes t abl i s hed thatN ew M exi co’ s cl as s i fi cat i on of a D U I offe ns e as a mi s demeanorw oul d pr ecl ude a fin d in g o f

e x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s to su sta in a w a rra n tles s b lo o d tes t. In th e ir at t empt t o r efr ame t he di s pos i t i ve ques t i on, t he off i cer s m ai nt ai n t hatouropi ni on i n Ma rs h a ll I

m i s cons t rued We lsh v . Wisc o n sin , 466 U . S. 740 ( 1984)
. A ccor di ng to th e o ffic e rs , Wels h “ d id n o t in d ica te – let a lo n e e sta b lish – h o w , if a t all, it s r at i onal e s houl d be ext ended be y ond hom e entr i es i nt o t he ar ea of bl ood t es t i ng. ” A pl t s ’ B r . at34. A s w e s um m ar i zed Welsh i n Ma rs h a ll I, t he defe ndant ’ s car s w erved off t he r oad, comi ng t o a s t op in an o p en field. A w i t nes s , not i ci ng t he ca rdr i vi ng err at i cal l y , cont act ed the pol i ce, butbyt he t i m e theyarr i ved defendantW el s h had w al ked aw ay fr om t he s cene . B ychec king the vehi cl e i dent i fi cat i on num ber , pol i ce w e re a b le to id e n tifyth e c a r a s b e lo n g in g to W e lsh , an d p ro c e e d e d to hi s hom e w i t hout fi r s t obt ai ni ng a w arr ant . Pol i ce e nt er ed hi s hom e and t oo k h i m t o the st at i on ho use to a d m i nis t er a br eat haly zer t est . W el sh r e f u s e d t o t a k e t h e t e s ta n d a s a r e s u l twa s c h a r g e d a n d c o n v i c t e d i n t wo22

se p a ra te, b u t r e late d , p ro c e e d in g s: o n e c o n c e rn in g h is re f u sa l to su b m it to a b re a th a ly z e r te st a n d th e se c o n d re latin g to d riv in g w h ile i ntoxi cat ed. T he W i sconsi n S up rem e C ou rtup held the co nv icti on s, rul i ng t hatt he w arr ant l es s arr es tw as j us t i fi ed undert he doctr i ne of e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s . T he Supr eme C ourtr ever s ed both convi ct i ons . A l t hough t he g o v ern m en t argu ed that th e n ee d to p rese rve the e v iden ce o f W elsh ’s bl ood al cohol l evel cr eat ed exi gentci r cumst ance s , t he C our thel d t hat preservat i on of evi den ce did no tj ust i f y a w arrantl ess i n-hom e arrestif t he offe ns e fo rw hi c h p r ob a bl e c a us e w a s s a i d t o ex i st i s “ re la tive ly m i no r. ” 3 4 5 F . 3 d at 11 7 5 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he off i cer s m i s r ead Welsh
. A per s on’ s hom e i s hi s orhercas t l e, and t hr oughouthi s t or y , one of the keypurpos es of a c as t l e’ s w al l s has been t o pr ot ect t he ca s t l e- ow ner ’ s bl ood. A s t he Welsh C our texpl ai ned: [T]he pol i ce be ara hea vybur den w hen att empt i ng t o d em ons t r at e an ur gentneed thatm i ghtj us t i fyw arr ant l es s s ear ches orarr es t s . I ndeed, t he C o u rt h as re cogni zed onl y a f ew s uch em ergency condi t i ons , s ee, e . g. , Un i t ed Stat es v. Sant ana , 4 2 7 U .S . 3 8 , 4 2 -4 3 (1 9 7 6 ) (h o t p u rsu it o f a flee in g fe lo n ); War den v. Hayden , 387 U . S. 294, 2 9 8
- 299 ( 1967) (sa m e ); Schm er ber , 384 U . S. 757, 770- 771 ( 1966) ( des t ruct i on of e v id e n c e ); Mi chigan v. Tyl er , 4 3 6 U . S . 4 9 9 , 5 0 9 (19 7 8 ) (on g o ing fire). Welsh , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 7 4 9 -5 0 . A s to fin d in g th o se e x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s, th e C o u rt e x p re ss e d its hes i t at i on, “es peci al l yw hen w arr ant l es s arr es t s i n t he home ar e ati s s ue” a nd
w h e n “ th e u n d e rly in g o ffe n se fo r w h ich th e re is p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st is
r el at i vel ym i nor . ” Id. at750. M or eover , t he C our texpr es s l ys t at ed i n Schm er ber t hatnon- emer gencyi nvas i ons of the bodyar e due at l eastt he s ame pr ot ect i ons as23

a re w a rr a n tle s s s e a rc h e s in th e h o m e . Schm er ber , 384 U . S. at770 ( “Sear ch
w arr ant s ar e or di nar i l yr equi r ed fors ear ches of dw el l i ngs , and abs entan em erg en cy , n o less co u ld b e re q u ir ed w h ere intru sion s o f th e h u m an b o d yare c o n c e rn e d .” ). Welsh ’s i m pact upo n the presentcase i s abun dan t l ycl ear: “[T ]he offen se th a t “[ M r.] W e lch w a s s u sp e c ted to h a v e c o m m itt e d w a s ‘a n o n c rim in a l civ il fo rfe itu re o ffe n se , fo r w h ich n o im p riso n m e n t is p o ss ib le . . . . G iv e n th is
e x p re ss io n o f

th e S tate s’ in ter e st, a w a rra n tles s h o m e a rre st c a n n o t b e u p h e ld
s i m pl ybeca us e evi dence of the pet i t i oner ’ s bl ood al cohol l evel m i ghthave di s s i pat ed w hi l e pol i ce obt ai ned a w arr ant . ’ ” Ma rs h a ll I, 345 F. 3d at1175 ( quot i ng Welsh , 466 U . S. at754)
. T hus , a s t at e l aw ’ s char act er i zat i on of the gr avi t yof the offens e i s par t i cul ar l yr el evantw hen ana l y zi ng Four t h A m endment
v io la tio n s . S e e Ma rs h a ll I, 345 F. 3d at1176 ( ci t i ng How ar d v. D i cke rs on, 34 F. 3d 978, 982 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) and United S t ates v. F l ow ers , 336 F. 3d 1222, 1 2 2 9 -3 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ))
. He r e , M r . M a r s h a l l wa s s u s p e c t e d o f h a v i n g c o mm i t t e d a mi s d e me a n o r . As t he Ma rsh a llI panel s t at ed, N ew M exi co has a “l i m i t ed i nt er es ti n coer ced t es t i ng o f th e b lo o d o f

a m o to ri s t c h a rg e d w ith a p e tty m is d e m e a n o r.” 3 4 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 6 . M or eover , t he s t atut e does noteven a l l ow a magi s t r at e the author i t yt o i s s ue a w a rr a n t fo r s u c h a s e a rc h
. See i d. ; N . M. S TAT . A NN . § 66- 8- 111( A ) ( r equi r i ng “pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatt he per s on has comm i t t ed a f el ony ” b efo re24

i s s uance of a w arr ant ) ( emphasi s s uppl i ed)
. B eca us e ther e w as no pos s i bi l i t yof obt ai ni ng a w arr ant , i tw as r eadi l ycl eart hatt he exi gentci r cumst ance s exce pt i on t o Schm er berc o u ld n o t e x is t. Ma rs h a ll , 3 4 5 F . 3 d a t1 1 7 6 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we r ej ectt he off

i cer s ’ cont ent i on t hatt heydi d nothave “ fai rw arni ng” that , att he t i m e of the even t s i n q uest i on , N ew M exico’ s cl assi fi cat i on of a D U I offense as a
m i s demeanorw oul d pr ecl ude the fi ndi ng of exi gentci r cumst ance s under Schm er ber
. Hope , 536 U . S. at740. T h e ju ryfo u n d th a t M r. M a rsh a ll’s a c tio n s in n o w a ya m o u n ted to c o n se n t. A s t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded, i ti s di ffi cul tt o i m agi ne how a compet entoffi cer coul d t hi nk i tcoul d m ake s ens e orbe r eas onabl e t o vi ol at e s t at e l aw . A pl t s ’ A pp. vol
. I , at167 ( “I concl ude thateven i f thes e off i cer s m i s t akenl yt houghtw hatt hey d id w a s p ro p e r, itw a s o bjec tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le fo r th e m to th in k th e yc o u ld law fu ll yg ive th is bloo d testin the ab sen ce o f M r. M arsh all ’s co n sen t. . . . ”); Mal l ey v. B r iggs , 47 5 U . S . 33 5, 34 1 (198 6) ( “A s the q uali fi ed im m un i t ydefe nse has evol ved, i tpr ovi des ampl e pr ot ect i on t o al l butt he pl ai nl yi ncompet entor th o se w h o k n o w in g lyv io late th e law .”); Ha rlo w v . F itzg e ra ld , 457 U . S. 800, 818- 19 ( 1982) ( s t at i ng t hat“a r eas onabl ycompet entpubl i c off i ci al s houl d know th e law g o v e rn in g h is c o n d u c t”) . V iew in g th e fa c ts in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to the ju ry ’s ve rdict, the d istri ct co u rtco rrectl yco n clud ed that a re aso n ab le office r, sim ilarlysitu a ted , w o u ld u n d e rsta n d th a t h is o r h e r c o n d u c t v io late d th e rig h ts cl ear l yes t abl i s hed i n S c h m e r b e r .25 I I I . CO NC L US I ON A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f th e o ffice rs’ p o stv e r d i c tmo t i o n fo rj u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w.