23 Cal. App. 5th 696
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Shortly after midnight, Officer Martinez stopped Peter Balov for driving conduct and observed signs of intoxication; a preliminary breath test indicated a BAC over the legal limit.
- Martinez arrested Balov for DUI and told him, pursuant to California law, he was required to submit to a chemical test and could choose breath or blood; Martinez did not advise Balov of the statutory consequences of refusing a test.
- Balov chose a blood test at the station; the blood draw was routine and Balov did not object at the time.
- Balov moved to suppress the blood-test results arguing his consent was coerced because he was not informed of the consequences of refusal under Vehicle Code §23612.
- The trial court denied the motion; the San Diego Superior Court Appellate Division affirmed; the matter was transferred to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to warrantless blood draw was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment | Balov: Officer’s statement that he was required to submit amounted to coercion because Martinez did not inform him of statutory consequences; consent therefore not voluntary | People: Officer accurately stated the existence of implied-consent obligation; failure to recite the statutory consequences does not render consent involuntary; totality of circumstances supports voluntariness | Court: Consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances; officer’s statement was not false or coercive and absence of statutory advisement did not automatically invalidate consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (recognizes blood draw as a search; warrants generally required but exigency/consent exceptions exist)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent vitiated where police falsely claimed to have a warrant)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (no presumption of invalidity where police fail to tell person they may refuse; voluntariness assessed by totality of circumstances)
- People v. Harris, 234 Cal.App.4th 671 (consent upheld under similar facts where officer’s implied-consent statements were not intentionally deceptive)
- Troppman v. Valverde, 40 Cal.4th 1121 (explains breadth of California’s implied consent statute and legislative purpose)
- People v. Agnew, 242 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (discusses limits of elevating statutory advisement to a constitutional requirement)
- People v. Mason, 8 Cal.App.5th Supp. 11 (concludes failure to give statutory admonition can imply refusal is not an option, but court here declines to adopt that as mandatory)