Repinec (James) v. State

(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