People v. Harris
225 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 1
Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct.2014Background
- Officer observed defendant’s unsafe driving and speeding; DUI arrest followed after field sobriety tests.
- Defendant was informed he must submit to a blood test under California’s implied consent law and said “okay.”
- Blood drawn at Moreno Valley station by nurse; defendant did not resist and did not withdraw consent.
- Defendant challenged warrantless blood draw as lacking exigent circumstances and proper medical procedures; trial court denied suppression.
- Court held: implied-consent consent satisfies Fourth Amendment; blood draw reasonable under medical practice; motion to suppress affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether implied consent renders blood draw valid without exigent circumstances | Harris cooperated under implied consent; no exigency needed | No warrant, no exigent circumstances; consent insufficient | Consent under implied consent suffices; no exigency required |
| Whether blood draw complied with accepted medical practices | McNeely cannot override consent-based draw | Draw may not meet medical standards | Evidence showed proper medical procedures were followed |
| Whether failure to offer blood vs. breath test affected legality | Implied consent controls; selection not dispositive | Failure to offer choice undermines rights | Offense remains valid; choice not required under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (exigency and medical-practice framework for warrantless blood draws)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (case-by-case totality of circumstances; rejects categorical rule)
- Ritschel v. City of Fountain Valley, 137 Cal.App.4th 107 (2006) (implied consent as non-coercive, consent-based testing under statute)