(2011). "[We] review[ ] findings of fact for clear error but thefl legal
consequences of those facts involve questions of law that we review de
novo." State v. Beckman, 129 Nev. „ 305 P.3d 912, 916 (2013).
Additionally, we review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. State v.
Hughes, 127 Nev. „ 261 P.3d 1067, 1069 (2011).
We have recently held that the warrantless, nonconsensual
search provided for in NRS 484C.160(7) is unconstitutional. Byars v.
State, Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 85, October 16, 2014).
However, we concluded that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary
remedy applies and exclusion is not mandated when an officer "relied in
good faith on the constitutional validity of NRS 484C.160, and such
reliance appears reasonable." Id. at , P.3d at , slip op. at 14.
Here, the district court found that the officers' reliance on the statute was
objectively reasonable and the exclusionary rule did not apply. Nothing in
the record suggests that the district court's factual findings are clearly
erroneous, and we conclude that the district court did not err by denying
Repinec's motion to suppress the blood evidence.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
taz-tm , J.
Hardesty
)
0,074
, J.
Douglas
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1941A
cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge
State Public Defender/Ely
Attorney General/Carson City
White Pine County District Attorney
White Pine County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
i4P„ip,W.1