State of Arizona, Appellee v. Francisco L. Encinas Valenzuela, Appellant

Summary

The court held that a DUI arrestee did not voluntarily consent to warrantless blood and breath testing after an officer repeatedly told him that Arizona law required submission to testing. Nevertheless, the court held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the officer reasonably relied on then-existing precedent approving the admonition, and it affirmed the convictions while vacating the court of appeals’ opinion. Chief Justice Bales, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have treated acquiescence to an assertion of lawful authority as involuntary as a matter of law and rejected or deferred consideration of the good-faith exception.