People v. Arredondo
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 153
Cal. Ct. App. 6th2016Background
- Defendant was unconscious after a serious DUI crash and a blood sample was drawn at the hospital without a warrant.
- California’s Vehicle Code § 23612 deems drivers to consent to BAC testing when lawfully arrested for DUI offenses.
- The trial court admitted the blood test evidence, relying on implied consent and good faith reliance on the statute.
- Prosecution argued consent sufficed and that exigent circumstances or good-faith reliance justified the warrantless draw.
- Defense argued the statute’s imputed consent is not actual consent and cannot by itself sustain a warrantless search; exigent circumstances were not proven; and the good-faith exception should not apply.
- The appellate court ultimately held that the statute alone does not justify a warrantless search; however, the evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception due to reasonable reliance on the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does statutory implied consent justify a warrantless blood draw when the arrestee is unconscious? | Arredondo’s unconscious state means there was no actual consent. | Implied consent by statute imputes consent to blood testing when unconscious. | No; statute alone cannot justify without a warrant or other exception. |
| Is the implied-consent regime an actual consent sufficient to sustain a warrantless search? | Consent imputed by the statute was sufficient to sustain the search. | Implied consent is not true consent and cannot replace a warrant. | Not sufficient as actual consent; warrant required absent another exception. |
| Were exigent circumstances present to excuse the warrantless blood draw? | Dissipation of blood content created exigent circumstances. | Probable cause existed earlier; warrant could not reasonably be sought in time. | No; no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure. |
| Does the good-faith exception validate the blood draw despite lack of warrant? | Officer reasonably relied on the implied-consent statute. | Reliance on the statute was not reasonable given lack of actual consent. | Yes; fruits of the search are admissible under the good-faith exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloom v. Superior Court, 142 Cal.App.3d 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (implied-consent dicta not controlling authority; not binding on Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Hawkins v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.3d 757 (Cal. 1972) (consent issues under implied-consent; distinguishable from present statute-based imputation)
- Duroncelay v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 766 (Cal. 1957) (consideration of consent versus lack thereof in blood draw)
- McNeely v. Missouri, 569 U.S. _ (U.S. Supreme Court, 2013) (addressed implied-consent laws but did not endorse statutorily imputed consent as a standalone warrantless basis)
- People v. Harris, 234 Cal.App.4th 671 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2015) (precedent regarding implied consent and advance consent considerations)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) (good-faith exception extends to reliance on binding authoritative precedents)