Motion to suppress evidence; People v Stricklin; Validity of consent to a chemical test; Effect of an officer’s misstatements of law about the right to refuse; MCL 257.625a(6)(b); Operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI); Preliminary breath test (PBT)

In this interlocutory appeal, the court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the chemical test evidence based on invalid consent. She was charged with OWI, third offense. She contended that her consent to the “test was not valid because it was coerced by the trooper’s misstatements of law regarding her right to refuse.” The court disagreed. She was “correct that the trooper mistakenly told her that refusing to take the PBT would result in an additional charge.” But the appeal only concerned “her consent to the chemical test, not the PBT, and the trooper correctly explained [her] rights regarding the chemical test by reading verbatim from MCL 257.625a(6)(b). [He] did briefly conflate the PBT and chemical test standards before the blood draw, but this mistake occurred after he correctly explained the law three times. More importantly, the trial court determined that this mistake occurred after defendant had already consented to the test and that she did not revoke that consent.” While she asserted that she “agreed to the test ‘under duress’ because she felt as though she did not have a choice,” the court noted that it stated in Stricklin “that ‘[h]aving to make a choice between two undesirable options does not render defendant’s express consent to the blood draw coerced and involuntary.’” It found here that the “trooper’s body-camera footage clearly showed that defendant consented to the chemical test after [he] explained her right to refuse three times.” Affirmed.