39 Cal.App.5th 1181
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In June 2017, Julio Nzolameso drove into a crowd, seriously injuring pedestrians; LAPD arrested him and transported him to a hospital.
- Officers advised him of California’s implied-consent law and that he could submit to breath, blood, or urine testing and that refusal to refuse all tests could lead to civil and criminal penalties.
- Nzolameso requested blood and urine tests, consented on the record, gave samples while officers observed, and did not withdraw consent; blood testing later showed a 0.05% BAC.
- He was charged with multiple DUI-related counts, moved to suppress the blood-test results arguing the draw was a warrantless Fourth Amendment search and his consent was coerced under Birchfield v. North Dakota.
- The trial court found his consent voluntary under the totality-of-the-circumstances test and denied suppression; Nzolameso pled nolo contendere and was sentenced.
- On appeal, he argued Birchfield made his consent invalid because of the threat of criminal penalties; the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Nzolameso) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrant was required for the blood draw and whether consent was invalid because of implied-consent criminal penalties | Birchfield does not bar a finding of actual, voluntary consent where the arrestee was offered less-intrusive alternatives (breath) and the trial court’s voluntariness finding is supported by substantial evidence | Birchfield requires invalidation of consent when the arrestee faced criminal penalties for refusing a warrantless blood draw, so the blood result must be suppressed | Court held Birchfield forbids compelled warrantless blood draws on pain of criminal penalty but does not automatically invalidate actual consent; substantial evidence supports voluntariness, so suppression was properly denied |
| Whether the Legislature’s post-Birchfield amendment (AB 2717) showing removal of criminal penalties for refusing blood tests means consent under the former law could not have been voluntary | The amendment aligned statutory language with Birchfield but does not retroactively negate a court’s factual voluntariness finding | The amendment demonstrates legislative compliance with Birchfield, which does not mean prior voluntary consents were coerced | Court held the legislative change did not invalidate the trial court’s factual finding of voluntary consent and did not alter the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. _ (2016) (warrant required for blood tests; breath tests may be treated as searches incident to arrest; implied-consent criminal penalties cannot be used to compel blood draws)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent evaluated under the totality of the circumstances)
- People v. Elder, 11 Cal.App.5th 123 (2017) (consent is an exception to the warrant requirement for blood draws when voluntary)
- People v. James, 19 Cal.3d 99 (1977) (appellate review: trial court’s factual findings on voluntariness upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
- People v. Gutierrez, 27 Cal.App.5th 1155 (2018) (California may offer blood as an alternative to breath testing without necessarily violating Birchfield; appellate review granted on related unconscious-defendant issue)