People v. Ling, JAD17-11

On June 13, 2015, CHP Officer Watson stopped Samuel Ling for a traffic violation, smelled alcohol, and observed signs of intoxication; Ling performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI.
Officer administered a PAS test (results .144, .177, .159) and then placed Ling in handcuffs and the patrol car; officer told Ling he "had to submit to a chemical test" (blood or breath) under implied consent but did not explain consequences of refusal.
Ling did not expressly choose blood or breath while at the scene or during transport to the Redwood City CHP station; the station only could conduct blood tests.
At the station, officers called for a blood draw and Ling’s blood was taken; he did not verbally consent nor physically resist; officer described Ling as having “submit[ted] to a blood draw.”
At the suppression hearing the People relied solely on consent to justify the warrantless blood draw; the trial court denied the suppression motion without detailed findings; Ling appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless blood draw was lawful under the Fourth Amendment based on consent	People: Ling voluntarily chose a blood test (no refusal or revocation; lack of resistance = consent)	Ling: No voluntary consent; mere submission to officer’s stated authority (“you have to submit”) is not consent	Reversed: Blood draw not shown to be consensual under totality of circumstances; suppression ordered

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (recognizing limited circumstances in which warrantless blood draws incident to arrest were once upheld)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (exigent circumstances from alcohol dissipation cannot be presumed; courts must evaluate exceptions to warrant requirement case-by-case)
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (consent induced by assertion of lawful authority or a warrant is not voluntary consent)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent evaluated under totality of the circumstances; knowledge of right to refuse is a factor but not required)
People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) (prosecution bears burden to prove consent was freely and voluntarily given)
People v. Harris, 234 Cal.App.4th 671 (2015) (advising motorist of legal consequences of refusing a chemical test does not automatically render consent involuntary; totality analysis required)