Harris

People v. Harris

Good Law
184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 198·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 154·234 Cal. App. 4th 671
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 19, 2015E060962California13,968 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

In Missouri v. McNeely (2013) 569 U.S._[ 185 L.Ed.2d 696 , 133 S.Ct. 1552 ] (McNeely), the United States Supreme Court held that, before the police may conduct a nonconsensual blood test of a motorist who is arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, the police must either obtain a warrant from a detached magistrate or later show that exigent circumstances prevented them from timely obtaining a warrant. ( 569 U.S. at p. _ [ 133 S.Ct. at p. 1563 ].) The high court also held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in a driver’s bloodstream does not create exigent circumstances in every case, and that the government must show on a case-by-case basis that a warrantless blood draw was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (569 U.S. at pp._, _[133 S.Ct. at pp. 1563, 1568].)

In this case, defendant and appellant Anthony A. Harris appealed from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a blood test taken after he was arrested on suspicion of DUI. The superior court appellate division affirmed the order denying defendant’s motion to suppress. The appellate division did not address…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.