DUI Arrests and Blood Tests
When law enforcement stops a California driver for allegedly
driving under the influence (DUI), the officer has the option of making the
driver submit to either a blood test or a breath test. California Vehicle Code Section 23612 (a), regarding blood tests for DUI, is based on the belief that by using public roadways, a driver that is legally
detained for a suspected DUI gives IMPLIED consent to a blood or breath test. The California DMV can also issue fines and suspend someone’s license for a year if they refuse consent.
BUT exceptions to that law exist.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided the case that detailed one of
the first exceptions to DUI law nearly 40 years ago. In Schmerber vs. California, the Court found that the extreme police brutality by the
officers that arrested and obtained the defendant’s blood made the blood draw
illegal. California DUI case law has
usually said that unless the case shows extreme circumstances, like those
described in Schmerber, the blood must be taken in a “medically reasonable”
manner.
In April of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a driver who
refused a blood test in McNeely vs.Missouri. In that matter, the Court said officers could only do a forced blood draw on a driver for a felony DUI.
A driver accused of a misdemeanor DUI does not have to submit to a blood test unless the officer either obtains a search
warrant or “exigent circumstances” exist in the situation. “Exigent circumstances” are urgent or
emergency circumstances that would make it impossible for the officers to
obtain a warrant, because evidence of the crime would be gone by the time the
warrant is issued.
Otherwise, the Court held, forcing a driver to submit to a blood draw in a misdemeanor case will result in a violation of the person's rights against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and (in California) Article 1, Section 13 of the California Constitution.
Since alcohol slowly dissipates and is metabolized in the body
over the passage of time, the McNeely
decision went beyond the current practices of police in arresting someone for
DUI and obtaining a blood or breath sample with or without their permission or
consent.
In July 2013, the California Supreme Court decided a
related issue. The Court decided People v. Cuevas, which looked at 7
separate cases from Alameda County where officers obtained blood samples from
drivers after DUI arrests. The issue in Cuevas was whether the blood was taken in
a “medically reasonable manner,” as defined by Schmerber. Some of the blood
tests done after the defendants were arrested were not taken in a hospital and
officers were not aware of the qualifications of the persons who took blood from
the defendants. The Cuevas court did not mention the McNeely
decision, but decided that under Schmerber, the blood tests were
performed in a medically reasonable fashion. The arrested drivers did not
complain of pain, the needles appeared to come from apparently sterile packaging,
etc.
Most people arrested for a first-time DUI are generally
law-abiding citizens, and they don’t understand the procedures involved. In fact, the person arrested often asks the
officer whether the officer thinks they should take a blood test or a breath
test! In close cases, the officers seem
to encourage blood tests when asked, because blood is believed to be more
reliable.
HOWEVER, a local Santa Clara County lawyer recently checked into whether
the preservative used in the blood vials to retain the alcohol content was
expired. He found that the preservative
used in several blood draws was indeed expired.
Unfortunately, the California courts have not published any cases resulting from
that issue.
The lesson from these incidents is clear: When you agree to a blood test - especially
if an officer has you take a blood test against your will – consult an attorney
as soon as possible. It does not matter
whether the results of the DUI blood or breath test are over the legal
limit. A lawyer can arrange to have a
professional retest your blood sample, check the levels and expiration dates of
preservatives used, and, in a case when the police used force, the McNeely decision may affect your DUI case
differently than it would have before that date.
If you or someone you know is accused of a crime, arrested,
or contacted by police, contact San Jose criminal defense attorney Maureen
Baldwin at (408) 279-4450 to learn your options today!
No comments:
Post a Comment