Opinion ID: 2612626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: express consent authorized the search

Text: By its terms, Nevada's implied consent statute [2] becomes operative in only two situations: when a driver is arrested, or when a driver is dead, unconscious, or otherwise in a condition rendering him incapable of being arrested. However, nothing in the statute indicates that it prevents a conscious driver who is not under arrest from providing valid consent to a blood alcohol test, and we shall not construe the statute to impose such a bar. Cf. Galvan v. State, 98 Nev. 550, 655 P.2d 155 (1982) (we shall construe our implied consent statute liberally to promote the legislative policy of removing intoxicated drivers from our state's highways). If a driver expressly and voluntarily consents to submit to a blood alcohol test, the test results are admissible not because of the implied consent law, but because of his express consent. State v. Kirkaldie, 179 Mont. 283, 587 P.2d 1298 (1978). See State v. Wetherell, 82 Wash.2d 865, 514 P.2d 1069, 1072-73 (1973). See also People v. Superior Court of Kern County, 6 Cal.3d 757, 100 Cal. Rptr. 281, 493 P.2d 1145, 1147 (1972). Consent exempts a search from the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. To be valid, however, consent must be voluntarily given and not the product of coercion, either express or implied; voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the surrounding circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-49, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2058-59, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Cuellar v. State, 96 Nev. 68, 605 P.2d 207 (1980); Sparkman v. State, 95 Nev. 76, 590 P.2d 151 (1979). Substantial evidence supports the finding of the district judge at the suppression hearing, and the implied finding of the trial court, that Davis' consent was freely and voluntarily given. Davis orally manifested his consent when the police officer asked if he would submit to a blood test. Moreover, when the medical technologist explained the procedure and the reason for it to Davis, he said that he understood the consent form and asked for a pen with which to sign it. Although the officer told Davis that he would lose his license for one to three years if he refused, Davis did not have a license to forfeit, and was thus immune to pressure under the implied consent law. Since we hold that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding of express and voluntary consent, we need not discuss the State's suggestion that an arrest is not necessary under NRS 484.383 when probable cause to arrest exists at the time the sample is taken. As there was neither a violation of NRS 484.383 nor constitutional infirmity in admitting the blood test results at trial, we affirm the judgment of the district court.