People v. Castro CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Castro argues the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his

warrantless blood draw. He contends that the blood draw constituted a violation of the

3 Fourth Amendment rights as set forth in Missouri v. McNeely (2013) 569 U.S. __

[133 S.Ct. 1552] (McNeely).) We disagree.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, "[w]e defer to the trial

court's factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In

determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under

the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment." (People v. Glaser

(1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 (Glaser).)

The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not

be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." (U.S. Const., 4th

Amend.) However, a warrantless search of a person is reasonable if it falls within a

recognized exception. (McNeely, supra, 133 S.Ct. at p. 1558, citing United States v.

Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218, 224.)

"One well-recognized exception,"…