Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05088/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05088-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT RAY EMERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-5088 AWI DLB HC

ORDER REGARDING THE SETTING OF AN

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Christopher Roman Rector, Esq. Respondent

is represented by Deputy Attorney General Catherine G. Tennant, Esq. 

On December 19, 2003, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

Sacramento Division of this Court. By order of January 14, 2004, the petition was transferred to

this Court. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on August 4, 2005, and Petitioner filed a

traverse on September 12, 2005. 

The petition presents several grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct. At page 17 of the petition,

Petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to make a motion to suppress evidence obtained by

Officer Hart. (Petition, at 17.) Specifically, he contends that Officer Hart lacked probable cause

to arrest him for driving under the influence of a controlled substance. He further contends that

the evidence used by Officer Hart for determining probable cause was the result of the medical

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

blood analysis that was done at the hospital showing amphetamines in Petitioner’s blood and was

protected by disclosure by state and federal law, particularly the physician-patient privilege. (Id.)

In his answer, Respondent argues “that there was ample probable cause for Officer Hart

to arrest Petitioner for driving under the influence of drugs causing injury to the victim and

others.” (Answer, at 21.) Respondent initially cites Officer McConnell’s police report, then

subsequent states “[a]s set forth above, eye witnesses reported Petitioner’s erratic, reckless and

dangerous driving, which resulted in the head-on collision with the victim’s car. Officer Hart

was also aware that Petitioner had a glass pipe containing a powdery residue on his person. He

recognized this as an instrument for smoking methamphetamine (CT 30 [Officer McConnell’s

police report].) In view of the foregoing, the California Supreme Court’s denial of this claim was

not unreasonable.” (Answer, at 21-22.) 

In his traverse, Petitioner argues that the drawing of Petitioner’s blood was not incident to

a lawful arrest, but rather a warrantless search without any emergency justification and without

Petitioner’s consent to the search. Petitioner further argues that Officer Hart lacked probable

cause, as the “only evidence of any possible drug use was the pipe found around the Petitioner,

although hospital notes indicate med flight nurse found the pipe in his pocket, trial testimony

evidences that no individual found the pipe directly on Petitioner.” (Traverse, at 9.) 

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. 

A blood test constitutes a search of the person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 768 (1966). Courts have summarized Schmerber as

permitting warrantless compulsory seizure of blood for the purpose of a blood test if three

requirements are met: (1) the officer must believe that he is confronted with an emergency, in

which the delay of obtaining a warrant, may threaten the destruction of evidence; (2) the officer

must have probable cause to believe the suspect was driving under the influence; and (3) the

procedures utilized to extract the blood must be reasonable. Pursuant to Cupp v. Murphy, 412

U.S. 291 (1973), decided after Schmerber, “if there is probable cause to believe that a person

committed driving under the influence of alcohol, the taking of such person’s blood is valid

regardless of whether that person is first formally placed under arrest.” Id. at 294-295; see also

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 It was stipulated that the blood was drawn in a medically approved manner and the chain of custody was 1

proper. (RT 62-63.) 

 In a supplemental police report, Officer Hart he 2

waited for a blood draw to be taken from [Petitioner] as the medical personnel performed

a CAT scan and several X-rays. While waiting in the emergency room, [he] was notified that

Manuel Keaton (Trauma Team, Clinical Nurse II) had found [a] clear glass cylindrical object on

the back board of [Petitioner] when he arrived at the emergency room. 

Manual related that he contacted [Petitioner] as he was laying in a supine position and the

clear glass cylindrical object was laying on his left side on the background. Due to the nature of

the collision, the severity of the injuries of the parties involved and the discovery of the clear glass

cylindrical object. I placed John [sic] under arrest for 23153(a) V.C.-Driving under the influence

of drugs or alcohol. A blood sample was drawn from the top of [Petitioner’s] right hand by Molly

Allison, Registered Nurse at 2020 hours. Due to the extent [of] [Petitioner’s] injuries, this was the

only test available.

(CT 34.) 

3

U.S. v. Chapel, 55 F.3d 1416, 1418-1419 (9 Cir. 1995). Probable cause exists where, in light of th

“the totality of the circumstances,” there is “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a

crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). 

At trial, Officer Hart testified that on March 27, 1998, he went to Memorial North

Hospital in Modesto, California, to investigate a traffic collision. (RT 60.) He made contact with

Petitioner in the emergency room, at approximately 5:00 p.m.. (RT 61-62.) In response to the

question as to whether he “cause[d] a blood sample to be drawn from [Petitioner],” he stated

“yes” at approximately 8:20 p.m. (Id.) The blood test was performed by a nurse. (RT 62.) 1

Officer Hart then stated that he retrieved some money and a “glass sloped object” from medical

personnel that was found with Petitioner. (RT 63-64.) It was stipulated that the there was an 2

initial scraping of the pipe which tested positive for methamphetamine, and the Department of

Justice testings established that the scraping contained .01 grams of methamphetamine. (RT 65-

66.) 

In his answer, as previously stated, Respondent cites to Officer McConnell’s police report

which states:

P-1 [Petitioner] was immediately transported to Memorial Hospital in

Modesto. Officer Hart #14906 responded to Memorial North Hospital in Modesto

to conduct follow up on the traffic collision. Upon Officer Hart’s arrival at the

hospital, he was made aware of a cylindrical object (pipe) that was in P-1's

possession while at the hospital. The pipe was determined to be the type used to

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

smoke amphetamines or similar types of drugs. Emerson was sedated for medical

treatment and was unable to provide a statement. A medical blood analysis was

done at the hospital. The results indicated that Emerson had amphetamines in his

system. Based on the pipe the nature of the collision, the erratic driving of

Emerson, and the medical blood analysis indicating the presence of amphetamines

in Emerson’s system, Officer Hart formed the opinion that Emergson was under

the influence of drugs. Officer Hart placed Emerson under arrest for driving

under the influence of drugs. . . .

(CT 30.) 

At trial, Officer McConnell testified that on March 27, 1998, he responded to the scene of

the collision. (RT 142.) He made contact with several of the witnesses at the scene. (RT 143-

145.) Based on his investigation at the scene of the incident, he opined that the cause of the

collision resulted 

From the erratic driving that proceeded northbound from 99 and then the accident

itself, and the pipe found in his possession and the medical analysis from the

hospital, I determined that the defendant was under the influence of drugs at the

time of the collision.

(RT 145.) 

 In a declaration submitted to the state court, dated August 30, 2001, Officer McConnell 

stated the following:

When I was investigating this case, I did become aware that some

unidentified medical personnel at Memorial Hospital had voluntarily disclosed

that Petitioner, while being treated at the hospital, had undergone a preliminary

screen medical blood analysis test which showed positive for methamphetamine. 

I also knew, as I had written in my report, that the record of this preliminary

screen medical blood analysis test including its result was retained by Memorial

Hospital and was not given or taken by myself or any other officer of the

California Highway Patrol during the investigation of this case.

I received no information that the actual blood sample taken by medical

personnel which was used in the aforementioned preliminary screen medical

blood test was retained by hospital personnel. I also did not receive any

information as to the identity of the hospital personnel who took that blood

sample or the circumstances under which that sample was taken. 

(Lodged Doc. 4, Exhibit 1; Declaration of Officer Shane McConnell, at 3-4.) 

The Court finds that the trial record is lacking of competent evidence for this Court to

make a determination as to whether Officer Hart had probable cause to warrant the ordering of a

blood test. Specifically, what evidence Officer Hart used to establish probable cause in making a

determination to order medical personnel to draw blood testing. 

On the basis of good cause, the Court finds it necessary to order an evidentiary hearing in

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The Court extended a courtesy call to both counsel advising them that an evidentiary hearing would be 3

held. The Court spoke with Respondent’s counsel, Catherine Tennant, who indicated that she would coordinate a

date and time with Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Rector. 

5

this matter to resolve the single claim of whether Officer Hart had sufficient probable cause to

order the blood testing. See Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Townsend v.

Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313, 318 (1963). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) court days from the date of

service of this order, the parties are directed to coordinate a convenient date and time for the

evidentiary hearing and to telephone Mamie Hernandez, at 559-499-5672, with such date and

time. 

3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 14, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 5 of 5