Opinion ID: 4534626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: [3-5] The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and it is well-established that the taking of a blood, breath, or urine sample is a search. 12 Searches without a valid warrant are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. 13 The warrantless search exceptions Nebraska has recognized include: (1) searches undertaken with consent, (2) searches under exigent circumstances, (3) inventory searches, (4) searches of evidence in plain view, and (5) searches incident to a valid arrest. 14 Both the county court and the district court devoted considerable analysis to whether the search incident to arrest exception can apply to a urine test after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield. 15 This case does not require us to answer that question. As explained below, we conclude that Degarmo voluntarily consented to the search of his urine and that his motion to suppress was properly overruled. As such, we do not address the applicability of any other recognized exception to the warrant requirement. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 See, Birchfield, supra note 1; Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 109 S. Ct. 1402, 103 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1989); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966). 13 State v. Garcia, 302 Neb. 406, 923 N.W.2d 725 (2019). 14 Id. 15 See Birchfield, supra note 1. - 689 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEGARMO Cite as 305 Neb. 680 1. Legal Standard and Historical Facts As a threshold matter, we emphasize that our analysis in this case is focused exclusively on whether Degarmo voluntarily gave consent for the search of his urine. 16 We thus do not address whether, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Birchfield, Degarmo can also be deemed to have impliedly consented to the urine test pursuant to Nebraska’s implied consent laws. 17 [6-9] Generally, to be effective under the Fourth Amendment, consent to a search must be a free and unconstrained choice, and not the product of a will overborne. 18 Consent must be given voluntarily and not as a result of duress or coercion, whether express, implied, physical, or psychological. 19 The determination of whether the facts and circumstances constitute a voluntary consent to a search, satisfying the Fourth Amendment, is a question of law. 20 Whether consent to a search was voluntary is to be determined from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the giving of consent. 21 Here, the county court made several findings of historical fact related to its determination that Degarmo voluntarily consented to the urine test. It found that Degarmo was in custody at the time, having been arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs and transported to a detoxification center for purposes of a DRE. It found that as part of the DRE, Schwarz read Degarmo part A of the postarrest chemical test 16 See State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840, 901 N.W.2d 327 (2017) (concluding Birchfield did not categorically invalidate warrantless blood draw based on actual consent when driver was incorrectly advised he was required to consent or face criminal penalties and finding totality of circumstances test proper). 17 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,197(1) and (3) (Cum. Supp. 2018). 18 Schriner, supra note 8. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. See, also, Hoerle, supra note 16. - 690 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEGARMO Cite as 305 Neb. 680 advisement form and directed a test of his breath, and that Degarmo signed part A of that form at 11:08 a.m. It found that about an hour later, Schwarz read Degarmo the consent to search form asking for permission to search his urine, and that Degarmo signed that form at 12:04 p.m. It noted Degarmo’s testimony that he signed the forms because he understood that he was going to be “guilty no matter what.” It also noted Degarmo’s testimony that he felt “belittled” during the entire course of the DRE. Degarmo does not challenge any of these findings of historical fact, and we agree they are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. After considering the totality of the circumstances, both the county court and the district court concluded that Degarmo voluntarily consented to the search of his urine. Because this determination presents a question of law, we consider it independently. 22 2. Totality of Circumstances As stated, whether consent to a warrantless search was voluntary is to be determined from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the giving of consent. On appeal, Degarmo advances two reasons why his written consent to the urine test was not voluntary. First, he argues his consent was “coerced out of him by a claim of lawful authority.” 23 Next, he argues his consent was not voluntary because he was “in a police-dominated atmosphere.” 24 We address each argument in turn. In arguing that his consent was coerced by a claim of lawful authority, Degarmo claims that after he read and signed the postarrest chemical test advisement form (which directed him to submit to a breath test), he was left with the “‘impression’” that if he did not also sign the consent to search form and agree to a search of his urine, that he “‘was going to be guilty no 22 Schriner, supra note 8. 23 Brief for appellant at 20. 24 Id. - 691 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEGARMO Cite as 305 Neb. 680 matter what.’” 25 We find this argument unavailing in light of the plain language of the consent to search form. [10] The consent to search form expressly advised Degarmo that he had a constitutional right not to have a search made of his blood or urine without a search warrant, and the form unequivocally stated that Degarmo had a right to refuse to consent to such a search. While there is no requirement that police must always inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search, knowledge of the right to refuse is a factor to be considered in the voluntariness analysis. 26 Here, the fact that Degarmo was told he had a constitutional right to refuse a warrantless search of his urine is a factor that weighs heavily in favor of finding his consent to such a search was voluntary. [11] The consent to search form also told Degarmo that if he refused to give consent to search his blood or urine, then officers would seek a search warrant. In his reply brief, Degarmo suggests that the threat of being “detained even further for the possible issuance of a search warrant” 27 was itself coercive, but we disagree. As we explained in State v. Tucker, 28 “A statement of a law enforcement agent that, absent a consent to search, a warrant can be obtained does not constitute coercion.” Having considered the language of the postarrest chemical test advisement form in conjunction with the plain language of the consent to search form, we reject Degarmo’s suggestion that an objectively reasonable person would be left with the impression he or she had to consent. Nor are we persuaded by Degarmo’s claim that his consent was coerced simply by being “in a police-dominated atmosphere.” 29 Degarmo suggests his consent to the urine 25 Id. 26 See United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 122 S. Ct. 2105, 153 L. Ed. 2d 242 (2002). 27 Reply brief for appellant at 3. 28 State v. Tucker, 262 Neb. 940, 948, 636 N.W.2d 853, 860 (2001). 29 Brief for appellant at 20. - 692 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEGARMO Cite as 305 Neb. 680 search was not voluntary because he “had been arrested, placed in handcuffs, put into a police cruiser, driven to detox, [and] subjected to various tests.” 30 All these are factors to consider in a totality of the circumstances analysis, but having done so, we do not agree with Degarmo that any of these factors vitiate the voluntariness of his written consent. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the “fact of custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a coerced confession or consent to search.” 31 And this court has similarly recognized that “[t]he mere fact that the individual is in police custody, standing alone, does not invalidate the consent if, in fact, it was voluntarily given.” 32 Here, the record shows Degarmo’s arrest and transport to a detox center were part of a routine DRE investigation, which was video recorded. There is no evidence that police conducted either the arrest or the DRE in a threatening or coercive manner. 33 Having considered the totality of the circumstances, we determine Degarmo’s written consent to the warrantless search of his urine was voluntary and not coerced. The motion to suppress was properly denied by the county court, and that denial was properly affirmed by the district court.