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

Summary

The court held that a DUI arrestee did not freely and voluntarily consent to warrantless blood and breath testing after an officer repeatedly stated that Arizona law required submission. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the convictions because the officer acted in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance on then-existing precedent, making suppression unwarranted under the exclusionary rule. Chief Justice Bales, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed that consent was involuntary but would have rejected or remanded consideration of the good-faith exception.