Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05088/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05088-11/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. )

)

)

)

 )

1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 56)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 30, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED, and the Clerk of Court be

directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent. These Findings and Recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days

from the date of service of that order. On January 14, 2008, after the request for, and the granting of,

an extension of time, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's objections,

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 61 Filed 02/26/08 Page 1 of 4
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

the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the

record and proper analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate

Judge's analysis.

While objecting to all parts of the Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner takes specific

issue in the objections with the Magistrate Judge's finding that the blood draw did not violate the

Fourth Amendment. Because the facts and procedure are known to the parties and the court, they

will not be recited in detail here. Of relevance to the blood draw is that Officer Hart went to

Memorial North Hospital in Modesto, California, to investigate a traffic collision and found

Petitioner in the emergency room at approximately 5:00 p.m. on March 27, 1998. Petitioner was

unconscious, and was being attended to by medical personnel. Medical staff were preparing

Petitioner to process and move him into the x-ray room. While Hart waited nearby, a nurse showed

Hart an “eight-and-a-half-by-11 sheet of paper on a clipboard that showed an initial blood draw”,

which indicated the blood contained amphetamines. Hospital personal also gave Hart money and a

“glass sloped object” that was found with Petitioner. Hart waited for approximately over three

hours while Petitioner was being treated by hospital staff. During this time, Hart telephoned his

sergeant and learned additional information about the collision. Given all information known to

Hart, he believed there was probable cause to arrest Petitioner for felony DUI causing injury and

obtain a blood sample. However, Hart could not immediately arrest Petitioner and order a blood

draw because Petitioner remained sedated for medical treatment. Hart could not arrest Petitioner

until 8:15 p.m., after Petitioner’s condition had been stabilized. At 8:20 p.m., Hart directed hospital

personnel to draw a blood sample from Petitioner. 

The basis of Petitioner's objection is that three hours passed between Hart deeming there was

probable cause to arrest Petitioner and Hart actually arresting Petitioner and obtaining a blood

sample. Petitioner contends that Hart should have attempted to obtain a warrant during this three

hour time frame. In, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), the Supreme Court held that a

law enforcement officer may withdraw a blood sample from a person under arrest despite his or her

refusal. Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770-71; United States v. Edmo, 140 F.3d 1289, 1291 -92 (9th Cir.

1998). The Supreme Court reasoned that the search could be conducted without a warrant because

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 61 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

of the need to act before the level of alcohol in the blood was significantly diminished by metabolic

processes. Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770-71. Such a search incident to a warrant less arrest must

based upon probable cause from which an officer "might reasonably have believed that he was

confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the

circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence'." Edmo, 140 F.3d at 1291-92. 

Here, Officer Hart had probable cause to arrest Petitioner based on, among other things, the

results of the initial blood draw, the glass object, and the information he had learned about the

conclusion. Given the evidence that methamphetamine does dissipate, Hart correctly concluded that

a blood draw could be taken along with the arrest because this evidence would be destroyed by the

passage of time. Petitioner makes much of the fact that three hours passed between the time Hart

appeared to have probable cause and Hart finally arresting Petitioner and ordering the blood draw. 

Petitioner claims a warrant could have been obtained during this time. Petitioner's contentions are

not grounds for habeas relief. First, there is no evidence a warrant could have been obtained in this

brief window. Second, the only reason Hart did not arrest Petitioner earlier and order the blood

draw earlier is because Petitioner was sedated and undergoing medical treatment. There is no

evidence that Hart knew it would not be until 8:15 p.m. that he could safely arrest Petitioner. Hart

had probable cause to arrest Petitioner and draw his blood prior to 8:15 p.m. The fact Hart was only

able to carry out these law enforcement functions was due to Petitioner's medical treatment, with

which Hart did not want to interfere. Thus, the court finds the objections do not present a basis to

not adopt the Findings and Recommendations recommendation that the blood draw was

constitutional.

The court notes that Petitioner also objects to the Findings and Recommendations on the

ground that the AEDPA is unconstitutional. While Petitioner acknowledges this argument is made

for the purposes of appeal only, this court find's Petitioner's constitutional challenge to the AEDPA

without merit. See, e.g., Crater v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119, 1122-25 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining the

constitutional validity of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)); Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 601 (9th

Cir. 2000) (concluding that "§ 2254(d)(1) does not suffer from any Article III constitutional

infirmities").

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 61 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 30, 2007, are ADOPTED with the

following modification:

a. Page 1, line 24, is amended to read multiple victim enhancements (Ca. Veh.

Code 23182); 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; 

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent; and,

4. The court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (a COA should be granted where the applicant

has made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., when

“reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong”; Hoffman v. Arave, 455 F.3d 926, 943 (9 Cir. 2006) th

(same). In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find it

debatable that the state courts’ decision denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus were not “objectively unreasonable.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05088-AWI-DLB Document 61 Filed 02/26/08 Page 4 of 4