Filed 12/20/21

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALBERIC ROLAND NAULT,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B306460

 Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. PA089854

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Hayden A. Zacky, Judge. Affirmed as 

modified.

Richard B. Lennon and Jennifer Peabody, under 

appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Voet, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

After four convictions for drunk driving, Alberic Roland 

Nault got drunk and tried to pass an 18-wheeler on a narrow 
2

road. His pickup hit an oncoming car and killed its driver. While 

Nault was unconscious from the crash, police took a warrantless 

sample of his blood. Nault argues this violated the Fourth 

Amendment. We affirm but direct the trial court to stay a second 

sentence under Penal Code section 654. 

Nault has a history of driving under the influence. At his 

2020 trial, he stipulated to four of these convictions between 2000 

and 2009. As a condition of probation, in 2001 he took a morgue 

program designed to snap him into focus. He also completed two 

other court-ordered alcohol awareness programs: one in 2006 

and another in 2013. These sessions described the potential 

consequences of drunk driving, including killing people and 

murder charges. 

On August 11, 2017, a park ranger found Nault digging his 

pickup out of beach sand. Nault was stumbling about and he 

sounded and smelled drunk. He refused field sobriety tests and a 

blood test. He told the ranger to arrest him: “I’m going to fail 

those tests. I’m going to get a DUI.” He said his blood alcohol 

content was over 0.08 percent because he drank a Four Loko. 

The ranger arrested Nault and impounded his truck. Authorities 

suspended Nault’s license.

On October 27, 2017, Nault used deception to get his truck 

out of impound. The tow yard would not release it to him while 

his license was suspended, so Nault paid a stranger $100 to show 

the tow yard a valid license that did not belong to Nault. Once 

the stranger got the truck released, Nault drove it away.

That same day at 7:00 p.m., Laurentino Doval Carlos was 

driving his 18-wheeler on a two-lane road with a 55 mile-per-hour 

speed limit. Doval was behind another 18-wheeler. Both were 

traveling about 50 miles per hour. It was dark.
3

In his rear view, Doval saw Nault’s headlights. Nault was 

trying to pass Doval at 70 miles per hour. Doval slowed to let 

him pass. The truck ahead of Doval blocked the view.

In the opposite lane, a Honda Civic appeared, driving 

towards Nault. Seeing Nault’s pickup coming straight at her in 

her lane, the Honda driver locked her brakes. Nault’s pickup hit 

the Honda, crushing the driver to death. Both cars burst into 

flames. 

Doval found the Honda driver dead and Nault unconscious 

in his driver’s seat. Nault smelled strongly of alcohol. Doval 

pulled Nault out of the burning pickup.

California Highway Patrol Officer Carlos Burgos-Lopez 

arrived at the scene at 7:28 p.m. Nault now was semiconscious in 

an ambulance. His pants were soaked with alcohol. BurgosLopez asked Nault what he had been drinking and Nault said, 

“Beer.” His speech was “thick.”

Nault’s injuries prevented him from giving Burgos-Lopez a 

complete statement. His blood pressure was very low, and 

medical personnel were giving him oxygen and intravenous 

fluids. He had injured his abdomen and leg and would be 

hospitalized for days. 

Burgos-Lopez went to get the breathalyzer from his cruiser. 

When he returned, medics were moving Nault to a helicopter for 

emergency evacuation, which prevented Burgos-Lopez from using 

the breathalyzer.

Burgos-Lopez stayed at the scene to investigate. He 

determined the accident’s cause was Nault’s driving under the 

influence at an unsafe speed and trying to pass with too little 

room. The long skid marks behind the Honda meant heavy 

braking. There were no skid tracks behind Nault’s pickup.
4

Burgos-Lopez then followed Nault to the hospital.

Officer Riley Beckinger got a call at 8:55 p.m. assigning 

him the investigation. He arrived at the hospital at 9:05 p.m. 

and found the unconscious Nault. Burgos-Lopez said Nault was 

under the influence. Beckinger smelled alcohol on Nault, and the 

smell was strong. The medical staff said they would take Nault 

into surgery soon. Beckinger knew he had no time to get a 

warrant before the surgery, so he asked a nurse to draw Nault’s 

blood straight away. Beckinger said he would get a warrant 

thereafter. A nurse took two blood samples, at 9:11 and 9:12 p.m.

Beckinger assigned another officer to get a warrant while 

he stayed at the hospital to gather information. Beckinger 

received the warrant that night and delivered it to the hospital 

the next morning. 

Analysis of the blood revealed that at 9:11 p.m., about two 

hours after the crash, Nault’s blood alcohol content was 0.14 

percent. That was about twice the legal limit.

The trial court heard Nault’s challenge to the blood 

evidence. Nault argued the analysis was inadmissible because 

officers got the samples without a warrant. The court held 

exigent circumstances justified the blood draws.

A jury convicted Nault of second degree murder (Pen. Code, 

§ 187, subd. (a)) (count 1) and gross vehicular manslaughter 

while intoxicated (id., § 191.5, subd. (a)) (count 2). Nault pleaded 

no contest to driving a vehicle with a suspended license (Veh. 

Code, § 14601.5, subds. (a) & (d)(2)) (count 3) and admitted four 

prior convictions for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, 

§ 23152, subds. (a) & (b); see Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (d)). 
5

The court sentenced Nault to 15 years to life in state prison 

for count 1, with a concurrent term of 15 years to life for count 2, 

and to one year in county jail for count 3. 

Nault argues the warrantless blood draw violated his 

Fourth Amendment right against an unreasonable search. We 

independently review the constitutionality of the search. (People 

v. Meza (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 604, 609 (Meza).) Federal law 

governs us. We are not permitted a state law departure. (See

People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 232–233.)

A blood draw is a search governed by the Fourth 

Amendment. (Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) 579 U.S. 438, __ 

[136 S.Ct 2160, 2173].) A warrantless blood draw is presumed 

unreasonable unless justified by a recognized exception. (U.S. 

Const., 4th Amend.; Missouri v. McNeely (2013) 569 U.S. 141, 

148.) One such exception is exigent circumstances, which arise 

when an emergency makes law enforcement needs so compelling 

that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable. (McNeely, at 

pp. 148–149.) 

Circumstances are exigent when blood alcohol evidence is 

dissipating, as it always is, and a pressing health, safety, or law 

enforcement need takes priority over a warrant application. 

(Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) __ U.S. __, __ [139 S.Ct. 2525, 2537] 

(plur. opn. of Alito, J.) (Mitchell); Schmerber v. California (1966) 

384 U.S. 757, 770–771.) The fact the human body continuously 

metabolizes alcohol is not enough. (Mitchell, at p. 2537.) 

When a driver is unconscious, the general rule is a warrant 

is not needed. (Mitchell, supra, 139 S.Ct. at p. 2531.) The Fourth 

Amendment “almost always” permits a warrantless blood test 

when police officers do not have a reasonable opportunity for a 

breath test before hospitalization. (Id. at p. 2539.) 
6

The general rule governs here. Exigent circumstances 

justified this blood draw. 

Nault created the exigency by injuring himself badly. He 

was unconscious and had to be helicoptered to surgery. Whoever 

called for the helicopter judged the situation dire. Nault does not 

suggest this decision was a manipulation. Caring for Nault’s 

medical need left no time for a breath test. 

Nault cites the Meza decision. (Meza, supra, 23 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 611–612.) Meza was pre-Mitchell. There was 

no airlift of an unconscious person. 

Nault also contends, and the prosecution agrees, his 

sentence for count 2 should be stayed pursuant to Penal Code 

section 654, which bars multiple punishments for the same act. 

We concur. (See People v. Sanchez (2001) 24 Cal.4th 983, 988, 

992.) 

DISPOSITION

We direct the trial court to stay the sentence for count 2 

pursuant to Penal Code section 654 and to forward a corrected 

copy of the abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation. No hearing or presence of parties is 

necessary. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

GRIMES, Acting P. J. HARUTUNIAN, J. *

* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.