People v. Nault
B306460
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2021Background
- In 2017 Nault, a repeat DUI offender, drove intoxicated, attempted an unsafe pass, collided with an oncoming Honda, and killed its driver; both vehicles caught fire.
- Nault was rendered unconscious and critically injured; medics airlifted him to surgery and he was hospitalized.
- At the hospital, while Nault was unconscious and being prepared for surgery, officers had a nurse draw two blood samples (9:11 and 9:12 p.m.) without a warrant; a warrant was obtained later that night.
- Blood testing showed a BAC of 0.14% about two hours after the crash.
- Nault was convicted of second degree murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated; he admitted prior DUI convictions and a suspended-license offense. He challenged admission of the warrantless blood evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The trial court admitted the blood evidence under exigent circumstances; on appeal the court affirmed that ruling but directed a stay of the sentence for count 2 under Penal Code §654.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Nault) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless blood draw under the Fourth Amendment | Exigent circumstances justified immediate blood draw: driver unconscious, breath test infeasible, evidence (BAC) dissipating | Warrantless blood draw violated Fourth Amendment; officers should have obtained a warrant first | Court: Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw (controlled by Mitchell/McNeely/Schmerber principles) |
| Applicability of Penal Code §654 to multiple punishments | §654 bars multiple punishments for the same act; sentence for count 2 should be stayed | Agreed (defense and prosecution concurred) | Court: Directed the trial court to stay the sentence for count 2 under §654 |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (blood draws are searches under the Fourth Amendment)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (warrantless blood draws presumptively unreasonable; exigency exception required)
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (when driver is unconscious and breath test is not feasible, warrantless blood tests are generally permissible)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (exigent circumstances can justify warrantless blood extraction)
- People v. Meza, 23 Cal. App. 5th 604 (pre-Mitchell discussion of exigency for blood draws)
- People v. Souza, 9 Cal.4th 224 (federal Fourth Amendment law controls state courts)
- People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.4th 983 (§654 bars multiple punishments for the same act)