and over his repeated protests.. Id. The district court granted a motion to suppress the blood draw evidence, and the State appealed. Id. This Court considered only the implied consent issue, as no party argued for exigent circumstances. Id. This Court concluded that: [A]n implied consent statute such as Washington’s and Idaho’s does not justify a warrantless blood draw from a driver who refuses to consent .., or objects to the blood draw, as did Defendant in this case. Consent to a search must be voluntary. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 232-33 [93 S.Ct. 2041, 2050-51, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 865-66] (1973). Inherent in the requirement that consent be voluntary is the right of the person to withdraw that consent. See McNeely [— U.S. at -], 133 S.Ct. at 1566 [185 L.Ed.2d at 712-13] (<HOLDING>). By objecting to the blood draw, Defendant
recognizing the late date of a motion to withdraw filed three weeks before trial recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances holding that defendants failure to withdraw consent to search for criminal activity in his home included the top floor because he did not withdraw his consent to search when he observed the officer go upstairs holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion recognizing that a motorist can withdraw consent