P. v. Cuevas CA1/1
218 Cal. App. 4th 1278
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Seven consolidated California misdemeanor DUI cases where defendants moved to suppress blood-test evidence drawn after arrest under Penal Code § 1538.5.
- Each defendant chose blood over breath under California's implied consent law and was transported to jail or a hospital for the draw.
- Arresting or transporting officers witnessed the draws; officers testified the draws were performed by persons they believed to be trained phlebotomists/blood technicians, used sealed needles, cleaned and (in most cases) bandaged the site, and that defendants did not show signs of pain or distress.
- The Appellate Division (2–1 majority) reversed trial courts, holding prosecution’s officer testimony was insufficient to prove the draws were conducted in a constitutionally reasonable (medically approved) manner, especially where draws occurred in jails.
- This Court granted transfer, asked whether the record supports finding any draw was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and reviewed the totality of the uncontradicted officer testimony de novo.
- The Court reversed the Appellate Division majority, holding the officers’ unrebutted, percipient testimony sufficed to show the blood draws were performed in a constitutionally reasonable manner; implied-consent selection is a factor but not dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer percipient testimony is sufficient to prove a blood draw was performed in a constitutionally reasonable (medically acceptable) manner | People: officer eyewitness testimony describing the draw can establish reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment | Defendants: officer testimony without medical/expert testimony cannot prove the draw met Schmerber’s medically approved standard | Held: Officer percipient testimony is admissible and, when uncontradicted, may establish the draw was reasonable; expert testimony is not categorically required |
| Whether a defendant’s choice of blood under implied-consent law makes the draw per se reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | People: implied-consent choice supports reasonableness | Defendants: implied consent alone does not satisfy Fourth Amendment reasonableness | Held: Implied-consent selection is a relevant factor but does not substitute for showing the draw was performed reasonably; the Court rejected treating consent as per se dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness requires intrusions be justified and performed in a proper manner; blood taken by physician in hospital was reasonable)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1996) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is fact-specific; courts avoid bright-line rules)
- People v. Sugarman, 96 Cal.App.4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (officer testimony about a hospital blood draw by nurse was sufficient to show the draw was performed in a medically approved manner)
- People v. Ford, 4 Cal.App.4th 32 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (draws outside hospitals not per se unconstitutional; inquiry is undue risk of infection or pain)
- People v. Esayian, 112 Cal.App.4th 1031 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (blood drawn by phlebotomist not fully qualified under state law did not violate Fourth Amendment absent evidence of undue risk)
- People v. Mateljan, 129 Cal.App.4th 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (focus on whether draw created undue harm or risk; procedural deviations do not automatically render draw unconstitutional)