Source: https://www.shouselaw.com/dui-bloodtest.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:54:55+00:00

Document:
DUI blood tests are prone to a variety of errors that can be challenged in court. In California, the procedures for DUI blood draws and testing are set forth in Title 17 of the Code of Regulations.1If these rules are violated, the results of the blood test may be invalid.
Fermentation, which can cause the sample to produce alcohol inside the vial.
1. When is a DUI blood test required in California law?
2. Is it better to take a DUI blood test or DUI breath test?
5. Can I be forced to take a blood test after being arrested for driving under the influence?
6. Can a driver have his/her blood tested in an independent laboratory?
Many experts consider blood tests the most accurate way to measure blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in a California DUI case.
People who drive in California are deemed to have consented to take a DUI blood test or DUI breath test if they are lawfully arrested for driving under the influence.2 This is known as California's “implied consent” law.
But not everyone can take a breath test. For instance, people with medical problems such as asthma or emphysema may not be able to blow hard enough.
Other people may be unconscious, either from alcohol and/or drugs or as the result of an accident.
Is a blood test ever preferable?
Some drivers may prefer a DUI blood test. Blood tests directly measure the amount of alcohol in someone's bloodstream.
Breath testing devices measure the amount of alcohol in deep lung air. They then mathematically convert this to an approximately equivalent BAC.
Also, with a blood test, a portion of the sample can be saved for later retesting, as discussed in Section 6, below. This is the major advantage of taking a blood test for BAC rather than a breath test.
Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth the procedures that govern DUI chemical tests. It includes general requirements for testing labs as well as procedures for blood tests specifically.
If any of these or other protocols are not followed, the accuracy of the DUI blood test may be compromised.
Example: Carl is pulled over for a broken taillight. The officer smells alcohol on his breath and asks Carl to take a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (“PAS”) breath test. Carl agrees and blows a .09%. The officer arrests him for Vehicle Code 23152(b), driving with a BAC of .08% or higher.
After his arrest, Carl elects to take a blood test to determine his BAC officially.15 Carl's blood is drawn by a medical assistant. The test results show a BAC of .10%.
But medical assistants are not authorized by law to do DUI blood draws. So Carl's criminal defense lawyer brings a motion to suppress evidence (California Penal Code 1538.5).16 The basis is that the Title 17 error constituted an violation of California's search and seizure laws.
But the court finds that the assistant was trained to do blood draws and had done over 100 of them. The procedures she followed were ones set forth in Title 17.
In California, DUI blood draws must be done with the driver's consent or with a warrant.
With few exceptions, the police cannot take blood from a suspected DUI driver against the driver's will unless they have a warrant. This is true even if the police reasonably suspect the driver of drug use.
This is because of a United States Supreme Court case called Birchfield v. North Dakota.18 In Birchfield, the court held that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests after a drunk driving arrest, but not warrantless blood tests.
But like most U.S. Supreme Court cases, the Birchfield case was narrowly decided. Its holding applies only to laws that make it a crime for someone to refuse a blood test after a drunk driving arrest.
A mandatory administrative driver's license suspension by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (regardless of the outcome in the criminal case).
So it remains for California courts to decide if these penalties are unconstitutional after Birchfield.
And note that a warrantless breath test does not violate a driver's constitutional rights.
With a warrant, an officer can physically force a driver to submit to a DUI blood test. An officer may seek a warrant if he/she believes a drunk or drugged driver caused an accident.
In this situation, the driver will be taken to a nearby hospital or medical facility. If necessary, the driver will be restrained by as many officers as it takes so that a lab technician can draw his or her blood.
The police may also get a warrant for a blood draw if a driver is unconscious or deceased.
California's DUI blood testing laws require that some of the driver's blood be saved for independent testing. This is one major advantage blood testing has over a breath test.
To exercise this right, the driver's DUI defense attorney will file a California “blood split motion.” This allows the lawyer to have the blood independently and confidentially analyzed by a private laboratory of the driver's choosing.
Was otherwise affected in a way that might cast doubt onto the police lab's conclusions.
Aggressively attack law enforcement's conclusions in an effort to get a DUI plea bargain or a "not guilty" verdict at jury trial.
Lack of probable cause for a DUI traffic stop.
"It's very likely that a rushed or otherwise unexpected blood draw could involve bad protocol. These are mistakes that could ultimately vindicate my wrongfully accused client."
If you took a blood test after you were arrested for driving under the influence in California, our DUI defense lawyers may be able to help.
Call us at 855-LAWFIRM to speak to an experienced California DUI defense attorney in your area.
The lawyers in our Las Vegas and Reno law offices fight the results of blood tests in Nevada DUI cases.
See, in particular, 17 California Code of Regulations (“CCR”) 1219.1.
See Vehicle Code 23612(a) (1) VC, California's “implied consent” law. This law requires drivers to submit to a breath or blood test to test their blood alcohol content if they are lawfully arrested for driving under the influence.
See Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908.
See also People v. Ford (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 32, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 189 (holding that the taking of blood without informed consent does not compel exclusion of the blood test results unless the manner in which the sample was obtained rendered the procedure constitutionally impermissible.
Facts based on People v. Esayian, endnote 14.
Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) 579 U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 2160.
See California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 (holding that failure to retain breath samples after a DUI breath test does not violate a defendant's constitutional due process rights). See our article on Trombetta Motions.
Barstow DUI defense attorney Michael Scafiddi is a former police officer who uses his inside knowledge of police procedure to defend clients accused of DUI and driving offense in courts and DMV hearing offices throughout San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.