California Court of Appeal

In this case, the superior court appellate division affirmed the order of the superior court denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a blood test taken after he was arrested on suspicion of DUI. The judgment is affirmed, where: 1) Missouri v. McNeely, which requires that police either obtain a warrant from a detached magistrate or later show that exigent circumstances prevented them from timely obtaining a warrant before conducting a nonconsensual blood test of a motorist suspected of DUI, does not govern defendant's case; 2) actual consent to a blood test satisfies the Fourth Amendment; 3) defendant's submission to the blood test in this case was freely and voluntarily given and did not violate the Fourth Amendment; 4) defendant's blood draw was conducted in a reasonable manner; and 5) even if McNeely were applicable and defendant's warrantless blood test may only be supported by exigent circumstances, the evidence may not be suppressed because the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies here.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/19/2015
• Published 02/19/2015

Judges

• McKinster

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel