Failing to advise a defendant of his implied consent rights requires suppression of the test results . . . except when it doesn’t

In opinions spanning four decades, North Carolina’s appellate courts have suppressed chemical analysis results in impaired driving cases based on statutory violations related to their administration. When the violation consists of the State’s failure to advise a defendant of her implied consent rights, the appellate courts’ jurisprudence has been straightforward and consistent: The results of an implied consent test carried out without the defendant having first been advised of her implied consent rights are inadmissible. Indeed, the court of appeals reaffirmed that principle last June in State v. Williams, __ N.C. App. ___, 759 S.E.2d 350 (2014), holding that the State’s failure to re-advise the defendant of his implied consent rights before conducting a blood test under the implied consent statutes required suppression of the test results. A court of appeals opinion issued in the waning hours of 2014 indicates, however, that the rule is subject to at least one exception. The case is State v. Sisk.  The issue before the court was whether the State’s failure to re-advise the defendant (who earlier had refused to submit to a breath test) of his implied consent rights before withdrawing his blood for chemical analysis required suppression of the blood test results. Sound familiar? The court of appeals confronted the same basic facts in Williams, and deemed them to require suppression of the blood test results as G.S. 20-139.1(b5) requires that a person “again be advised of the implied consent rights in accordance with G.S. 20-16.2(a)” “if a subsequent chemical analysis is requested.” [...]