People v. Diaz
153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 90
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Diaz was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence while intoxicated after a fatal crash.
- The Tahoe involved was impounded and its sensing diagnostic module (SDM) data were downloaded without a warrant.
- Police relied on MAIT inspection protocol and instrumentality of the vehicle to justify SDM data retrieval.
- Trial court denied suppression, holding probable cause and no reasonable expectation of privacy in the SDM data.
- Appellate court held no Fourth Amendment violation and upheld admission of SDM data as harmless error, affirming the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the warrantless SDM data download constitutional? | Diaz argues the SDM data download violated the Fourth Amendment. | People argues no privacy interest and that automobile exception applies. | No Fourth Amendment violation; data admissible. |
| Does the instrumentality-of-the-crime exception justify the SDM download? | Diaz contends the instrumentality exception does not apply to SDM data. | People argues SDM was part of the vehicle itself, an instrumentality. | Instrumentality exception applies; SDM data admissible. |
| Did Diaz have a reasonable expectation of privacy in SDM data? | Diaz asserts a privacy interest in SDM data. | People contends no reasonable expectation in speed/braking data on public roads. | No reasonable expectation of privacy; SDM data admitted. |
| Was the SDM data admissible as harmless error? | Suppression error biased the trial. | Any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt. | Harmless error; conviction affirmed. |
| Is Vehicle Code 9951.5 applicable to Diaz’s Tahoe? | Statute might govern retrieval of SDM data. | Statute does not apply to a 2002 Tahoe; no prejudice. | Statute not applicable; no prejudice established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (privacy expectation in Fourth Amendment analysis)
- People v. Camacho, 23 Cal.4th 824 (Cal. 2000) (defining reasonable expectation of privacy in context)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (scope of automobile exception mirrors warrant scope)
- Jones v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (GPS tracking and trespass-based Fourth Amendment analysis)
- People v. Teale, 70 Cal.2d 497 (Cal. 1969) (instrumentality exception for autos as evidence)