15 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 12
Cal. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant arrested for DUI on Feb 19, 2016; officer offered breath test (no retention of sample) or blood test and described that two vials would be drawn: one sent to the crime lab for alcohol testing and the second vial “held at no cost to you.”
- Defendant consented to a blood draw; alcohol test performed Feb 29, 2016; second vial sent to Bio‑Tox and received Mar 30; Bio‑Tox reported positive drug screen Apr 1, 2016.
- Prosecutor charged defendant with driving under combined influence of alcohol and drugs (Veh. Code § 23152(f)); defendant moved to suppress the drug test results.
- Trial court denied suppression of the alcohol test but granted suppression of the drug test results as beyond the scope of the defendant’s consent (consent limited to alcohol testing).
- People appealed; appellate court affirmed suppression of the drug test results and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sending the second vial for drug testing exceeded the scope of consent | Consent was not limited; police could test the sample for drugs without further consent | Officer limited consent to alcohol testing; reasonable person would understand blood would be tested only for alcohol | Sending the vial for drug testing exceeded the scope of consent; drug results suppressed |
| Who bears burden to show scope of consent | Police satisfied scope; no limitation shown by defendant | Government must prove the warrantless search fell within the consent given | Government failed to show consent covered drug testing; suppression appropriate |
| Whether drugs detectable only by lab analysis are discoverable despite limited consent | Police may act on information revealed during a lawful search | Drugs in blood are not in plain view and require separate testing; outside consent | Lab analysis for drugs is a separate search and, here, exceeded consent |
| Whether exclusionary rule applies given potential systemic practices or good‑faith | Evidence admissible if police acted in good faith or error was not deliberate/systematic | Suppression appropriate because secondary testing reflected a recurring/systemic procedural failure unless good faith shown | Exclusionary rule applied because record lacked specific evidence of good‑faith reliance and agency practice indicated a recurring failure |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Crenshaw, 9 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness)
- People v. Harwood, 74 Cal.App.3d 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (consent limits the authority to search)
- People v. Miller, 69 Cal.App.4th 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (plain‑view observations during consent searches may be used)
- People v. Thomas, 200 Cal.App.4th 338 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishing searches of abandoned property and noting separate privacy interests in biological samples)
- State v. Binner, 886 P.2d 1056 (Or. Ct. App. 1994) (suppressing drug test results where consented testing was limited to alcohol)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n., 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (collection and analysis of biological samples can implicate separate privacy interests)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule tied to deterrence; exceptions for isolated negligence)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)