Background
Lilly Laroque was seriously injured after her pickup crossed the center line and struck another vehicle head-on in Gallatin County. The other driver died. Officers found marijuana-related items in Laroque’s vehicle and learned that a Snapchat was sent from her phone about three minutes before the crash was reported.
At the hospital, a Montana Highway Patrol sergeant read Laroque the implied-consent advisory and asked three times whether she would take a blood test. Laroque did not answer those requests. At the officer’s direction, medical staff drew her blood without a warrant. Testing showed 7.0 ng/ml of THC. The District Court suppressed the blood sample and toxicology report, finding that Laroque had not consented.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. Substantial credible evidence supported the District Court’s factual finding that Laroque did not understand the advisory or voluntarily consent to the warrantless blood draw. Her nonresponsiveness could reasonably be attributed to injuries from the severe collision, and the State offered no evidence that she was deliberately refusing to answer or otherwise understood what was being requested.
The court distinguished its prior decision involving a motorist who had affirmatively acknowledged understanding the implied-consent advisory before becoming silent. Here, Laroque never demonstrated that understanding. The court also declined to consider the State’s good-faith-exception argument because the State raised it for the first time on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Implied-consent law did not establish actual consent on this record.
- A motorist’s silence does not establish voluntary consent when evidence supports incapacity or lack of understanding.
- The State cannot raise a new good-faith-exception theory for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that warrantless blood draws require a valid exception to the warrant requirement, and courts will closely examine whether a hospitalized driver actually understood and voluntarily consented. Implied consent does not eliminate the need for record evidence supporting consent in the circumstances presented.