People v. Arter
JAD17-20
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- On Sept. 24, 2016, Officer Machado stopped a boat on the Sacramento River for speeding; Adam Arter was among the occupants and initially denied drinking.
- Officer observed nystagmus and other signs of impairment; Arter consented to an initial breath test that read .079% BAC.
- Officer then asked Arter to perform field sobriety tests and obtain an additional preliminary breath test (described as another field sobriety test); that reading was .094% BAC.
- After the .094% reading, Arter was placed under arrest; officer read an advisement about implied consent and potential consequences, then obtained two post-arrest evidentiary breath samples (.08% and .09%).
- Arter moved to suppress the pre-arrest .094% preliminary test and the two post-arrest evidentiary breath tests, arguing lack of voluntary consent and coercive/misleading advisement; the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of consent to second (pre-arrest) breath test (.094%) | Consent was voluntary; tests were part of field sobriety evaluation | Consent invalid because test was obtained as part of investigation and not freely given | Consent to the second/preliminary breath test was voluntary; court inferred implied consent and no coercion |
| Validity of consent to two post-arrest evidentiary breath tests | Post-arrest breath tests lawful as searches incident to arrest under Birchfield; admissible | Consent vitiated by inaccurate/coercive advisement; inevitable discovery not applicable | Post-arrest breath tests upheld as constitutionally permissible under Birchfield; court affirmed admission |
Key Cases Cited
- Leyba v. California, 29 Cal.3d 591 (discusses appellate standard of review on suppression rulings)
- Lawler v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.3d 156 (describes two-step suppression review: factual findings and independent legal review)
- Avila v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.App.4th 1069 (standard of review summary on motions to suppress)
- Ramirez v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.4th 1548 (factors relevant to voluntariness of consent)
- Miller v. Superior Court, 69 Cal.App.4th 190 (consent voluntariness evaluation)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (warrantless breath tests may be search incident to arrest; blood tests require warrant absent exigency)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent vitiated by government assertion of lawful authority)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (custody alone does not automatically render consent involuntary)
- State v. Pettijohn, 899 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa Supreme Court applying Birchfield to boating: warrantless breath test constitutionally permissible post-arrest)