245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 143
Cal. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On Sept. 3, 2017, deputies stopped a boat on the Sacramento River for speed-related violations, observed open containers and the odor of alcohol, and contacted Vincent Gutierrez, whom they suspected was the operator.
- Gutierrez exhibited red/watery eyes; he denied drinking to one deputy but later admitted drinking two beers to another; deputies administered HGN and finger-to-nose tests and observed indicators of impairment.
- Gutierrez refused a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) and was arrested for boating under the influence.
- After arrest, Deputy Harbaugh told Gutierrez he had "a choice of a blood or breath test," but did not advise Gutierrez he could refuse; the deputy testified department policy required submission to one of the tests.
- Gutierrez, handcuffed and held in a patrol vehicle, submitted to a blood draw by medical staff. He moved to suppress the blood evidence; the trial court denied the motion, and Gutierrez appealed.
- The Appellate Division reversed, concluding the blood draw was obtained involuntarily because the officer mischaracterized the statutory request as a command in circumstances suggesting coercion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to warrantless blood draw was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment | The People argued consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and relied on trial-court credibility findings | Gutierrez argued his "consent" was involuntary because he was told he had to submit to a test (contrary to Harb. & Nav. Code §655.1), was in custody, and thus effectively coerced | Reversed: consent was involuntary. Misstatement that he "had to" submit, combined with arrest, handcuffs, transport, and detention, rendered consent invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood draws are searches subject to Fourth Amendment review)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent judged under the totality of the circumstances)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (consent procured by assertion of lawful authority is coerced)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (analysis of voluntariness focuses on whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse)
- People v. Leyba, 29 Cal.3d 591 (1981) (appellate standard: defer to trial court fact findings but independently assess constitutional reasonableness)
- People v. Harris, 234 Cal.App.4th 671 (2015) (discusses proof required to show consent to chemical testing was voluntary)