Divided Court rules the admission of evidence of a refusal to submit to a blood test in the context of a DUI criminal proceeding does not violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

State v. Rajda, 2018 VT 72 [filed July 20, 2018]

REIBER, C.J. In the above consolidated cases, the State appeals the trial court’s interlocutory orders granting defendants’ motions in limine seeking to suppress evidence of their refusal to submit to blood tests to determine if they were operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs (DUI). The trial court granted the motions in limine based on Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). The State challenges the trial court’s interpretation of Birchfield, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court indicated therein that evidence of a refusal to take a warrantless blood test in the context of a DUI arrest and prosecution could be admitted at trial as evidence of guilt. Defendants respond that the constitutional issue has been effectively mooted by a post-Birchfield amendment to Vermont’s implied consent law and that, in any event, the trial court correctly construed Birchfield and other related federal law to prohibit the admission of evidence of a refusal to consent to a warrantless blood test.

We conclude that the amendment to the implied consent law did not moot the constitutional issue before us. We further conclude that Fourth Amendment does not prohibit admitting in a criminal DUI proceeding evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test requested pursuant to Vermont’s implied consent law. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decisions granting defendants’ motions in limine and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


ROBINSON J., dissenting. I would dismiss these appeals as moot.. I am authorized to state that Judge Davenport joins this dissent.