People v. Mason
JAD16-13
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- On May 2, 2013 Officer Stromska stopped Rebecca Mason for driving the wrong way on a one-way street, observed signs of intoxication, and arrested her for DUI.
- At the station he offered a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) as optional; Mason declined the PAS, was told she was "required" to submit to either a blood or breath test, and chose blood.
- The officer did not give the full statutorily mandated implied-consent admonition (including consequences of refusal or lack of right to an attorney before deciding) and did not seek a warrant before the blood draw.
- The People relied solely on Mason's alleged consent to justify the warrantless blood draw; no evidence was presented that Mason held a California driver’s license or had given express advance consent via a license application.
- The trial court denied suppression; on appeal the court reviewed de novo the constitutional question and reversed, holding the People failed to prove actual free and voluntary Fourth Amendment consent to the blood draw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless blood draw was justified by Mason's consent | Mason voluntarily chose blood over breath when told she was "required" to submit, so consent exception applies | Officer's statement that she was "required" plus omission of statutory admonitions rendered any consent coerced/not voluntary | Consent was not shown to be free and voluntary; suppression required |
| Whether "implied" or advance consent from driving/licensure equates to Fourth Amendment consent | Implied/express consent under Vehicle Code amounts to advance consent, subject to withdrawal | Deemed consent is legal fiction for administrative purposes and does not equal actual Fourth Amendment consent | Deemed or statutory "consent" does not substitute for actual Fourth Amendment consent; People offered no proof of express advance consent in this case |
| Effect of officer omitting consequences of refusal when stating submission is "required" | Omission is immaterial if defendant submitted and did not resist | Saying submission is "required" without consequences creates a claim of lawful authority that can vitiate consent | Officer’s statement plus omission made the representation misleading and could vitiate consent under totality of circumstances; here it did |
| Whether any other exception to warrant requirement applied (e.g., exigency) | No alternative exception asserted by People | N/A | No other exception shown; warrantless blood draw violated Fourth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (recognizes blood extraction as a Fourth Amendment search)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (acquiescence to claim of lawful authority is not consent)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent judged by totality of circumstances)
- McNeely v. Missouri, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create categorical exigency for warrantless blood draws)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (limits on states deeming motorists to have consented to blood tests)
- People v. Panah, 35 Cal.4th 395 (consent as exception to warrant requirement)
- People v. Robinson, 47 Cal.4th 1104 (blood draw as a Fourth Amendment search)
- People v. Harris, 234 Cal.App.4th 671 (totality of circumstances can support consent where statutory admonitions given)