People v. Rossetti
179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 148
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- At ~1:50 a.m., CHP Officer Tyhurst stopped Rossetti for speeding and weaving; officer observed signs of intoxication and placed him under arrest after field sobriety tests.
- At the CHP office, Rossetti refused chemical tests; he was restrained by four officers and a certified phlebotomist drew two vials of blood at 2:38 a.m. without a warrant.
- Officer Tyhurst did not obtain a warrant because he believed one was not required; a judge was available on call.
- Blood testing showed a BAC of 0.19%; Rossetti moved to suppress the blood results and related evidence, arguing Fourth Amendment and due process violations.
- The superior court denied suppression; Rossetti pleaded no contest to driving with .08%+ BAC and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless forcible blood draw — constitutional? | Prosecution: Pre-McNeely California precedent permitted warrantless nonconsensual blood draws incident to arrest where medically reasonable and based on probable intoxication. | Rossetti: McNeely and exigency principles required a warrant because a magistrate was available; warrantless draw violated Fourth Amendment. | Court: Although McNeely changed the law, officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on existing California precedent at the time; exclusionary rule does not apply (good-faith exception). Suppression denied. |
| Use of force in obtaining blood — excessive force / due process? | Prosecution: Force was limited, necessary to overcome active resistance and ensure safety; blood drawn by certified phlebotomist in medically approved manner. | Rossetti: Forcible restraint and blood draw constituted excessive, conscience-shocking conduct. | Court: Video and testimony show force was reasonable and no gratuitous violence; comparable to previously approved restraints (Carleton). No suppression for excessive force. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw upheld where officer reasonably believed exigency threatened destruction of evidence)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (natural dissipation of alcohol does not categorically create exigency; totality of circumstances analysis required)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (exclusionary rule does not apply when police reasonably rely on binding precedent)
- People v. Thompson, 38 Cal.4th 811 (warrantless home entry for DUI arrest upheld on totality of circumstances; emphasizes heightened privacy interests in the home)
- Carleton v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.3d 1182 (forceful restraint and blood draw upheld where necessary to overcome resistance and protect officer safety)