Arredondo

People v. Arredondo

Good Law
199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 153·245 Cal. App. 4th 186
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 2016H040980California11,206 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rushing, J.

*190 Marcus Arredondo pleaded no contest to drunk driving after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test. The chief question in the case is under what circumstances may authorities seize a blood sample from an unconscious person suspected of drunk driving without offending the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court found that a blood extraction was permissible, without a warrant or a showing of exigent circumstances, by virtue of California's "implied consent" law, which declares that one who drives a motor vehicle in this state is "deemed" to consent to blood alcohol testing. We hold that the consent imputed to drivers under such a law cannot by itself justify a seizure without a duly issued warrant. We find no error, however, in the trial court's ruling that the officer here reasonably relied on the statute in seizing defendant's blood without a warrant, bringing the case within the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule. On that basis we will affirm the conviction.

BACKGROUND

Testimony at the preliminary hearing established that shortly before 11:00 p.m. on April 29, 2013,…

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.