Court Opinion

ID: 9747391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:13:34.318611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:23.429001
License: Public Domain

McINTYRE, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the majority opinion to the extent it holds that the record properly before us does not demonstrate that the County of San Diego (County) has a deliberate, systematic and pervasive policy of having blood draws conducted in violation of statutory requirements. I dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the blood draw in this case does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Because I find that the prosecution did not meet its burden to show that the blood draw was constitutionally reasonable in this case, I do not reach the issue of whether the introduction of the blood test results at trial violated Esayian’s due process rights.
Pursuant to state law, only specified persons may draw blood for the purpose of determining its alcohol content (BAC). (Veh. Code, § 23158, *1043subd. (a) (all further statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise specified); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 1219.1, subd. (a) [referring to former § 13354, now § 23158].) Persons authorized to conduct the procedure include licensed physicians or surgeons, registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, certain licensed clinical personnel or certified paramedics acting at the request of a peace officer. (§ 23158, subd. (a).) In addition, certain unlicensed laboratory personnel are authorized to conduct such blood draws, provided certain statutory requirements are met. (Ibid.) As relevant here, an unlicensed person is qualified to perform such a procedure (1) at the direction of a peace officer, if (2) he or she (a) is properly trained, (b) is employed by a licensed clinical laboratory, and (c) works under the supervision of a physician or other licensed person who is “physically available to be summoned to the scene of the venipuncture within five minutes during the performance of those procedures.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 1246, subds. (a)-(b); § 23158, subd. (a).)
A person authorized by statute to draw blood samples for purposes of blood-alcohol testing is required to comply with regulatory standards applicable to such blood draws, as set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 1219 and 1219.1. Those regulations set forth certain minimum standards for blood draws, including the use of nonalcohol or other volatile organic disinfectants for the draw site and of sterile, dry hypodermic needles and syringes or clean, dry vacuum-type containers with sterile needles. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 1219.1, subds. (c), (d).)
It is undisputed here that Garcia did not meet the requirements of section 23158 and thus was not qualified under state law to draw blood samples for BAG testing. It is also undisputed that she was not trained in or aware of the minimum standards set forth in the regulations governing such a blood draw and that she performed the blood draw in a nonmedical facility. The threshold question presented in this case is whether—in light of Garcia’s lack of qualifications to draw Esayian’s blood, her lack of training and knowledge of the regulations, and the setting in which she drew the blood—the prosecution met its burden to show the reasonableness of the blood draw as required under the Fourth Amendment. I conclude that it did not.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” by police officers and other government officials. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) By virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, this guarantee is applicable to the states. (See Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643 [6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 86 OhioLawAbs. 513].) A similar guarantee against unreasonable government searches is set forth in the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 13), but since voter *1044approval of Proposition 8 in June 1982, state and federal claims relating to exclusion of evidence on grounds of unreasonable search and seizure are measured by the same standard. (People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, 829-830 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 232, 3 P.3d 878].) “Our state Constitution . . . forbids the courts to order the exclusion of evidence at trial as a remedy for an unreasonable search and seizure unless that remedy is required by the federal Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 830; see People v. McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, 608 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 41 P.3d 59] [evidence taken in violation of state statutory or constitutional provisions is not subject to exclusion unless its taking also violates federal constitutional standards].) However, if federal Fourth Amendment standards are violated, the evidence so obtained is subject to the exclusionary rule.
A person may consent to a warrantless search of his person or property, and in accordance with the state implied consent law, all drivers of motor vehicles are deemed to have consented to a blood, breath or urine blood-alcohol test when lawfully arrested for driving under the influence. (§ 23612; Zink v. Gourley (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 774, 778, fn. 2 [91 Cal.Rptr.2d 896].) Such implied consent assumes, however, that authorized personnel will conduct tiie test in an authorized manner. No such consent can be assumed where, as here, the person administering the procedure is not authorized or qualified to do so and is untrained in the minimum standards for the procedure as specified by law. (See People v. Ford (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 32, 36 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 189] (Ford); Ross v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 398 [268 Cal.Rptr. 102] [driver’s insistence on seeing documentation establishing that the person drawing his blood is licensed to do so before submitting to a blood draw does not constitute a refusal to submit to the test].)
Of course, the absence of consent does not establish a federal constitutional violation. In Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757 [16 L.Ed.2d 908, 86 S.Ct. 1826] (Schmerber), the United States Supreme Court concluded that a driver arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol may be required to submit to a blood test without his consent provided that the procedure (1) is incident to a lawful arrest, (2) is based on a reasonable belief that the driver is intoxicated, and (3) meets relevant Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness. (See also People v. Sugarman (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 210, 214 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 689]; Ove v. Gwinn (9th Cir. 2001) 264 F.3d 817, 824.) Where, as here, the defendant challenges the reasonableness of the search, the prosecution bears the burden of showing that the search was reasonable. (See Schmerber, supra, 384 U.S. at pp. 771-772; People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 130 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 973 P.2d 52].)
*1045What is reasonable “ ‘depends on all of the circumstances surrounding the search or seizure and the nature of the search or seizure itself,’ ” and the permissibility of the search is “ ‘judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.’ ” (Skinner v. Railway Executives’ Assn. (1989) 489 U.S. 602, 619 [103 L.Ed.2d 639, 109 S.Ct. 1402].) “[T]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. In each case it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted.” (Bell v. Wolfish (1979) 441 U.S. 520, 559 [60 L.Ed.2d 447, 99 S.Ct. 1861].)
It is well established that the government has a significant interest in obtaining blood test evidence to determine whether a driver was under the influence of alcohol. (Schmerber, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 771.) As recognized in Schmerber, blood tests are “a highly effective means of determining the degree to which a person is under the influence of alcohol,” and a blood test carries with it a high probability that evidence of guilt will be found. (Id. at pp. 770-771.) However, even recognizing the government’s significant interest in the evidence, the central question remains whether the means by which the police obtained that evidence otherwise created an unreasonable intrusion to the driver’s Fourth Amendment interests.
Where the search involves a surgical intrusion beneath the skin, its reasonableness depends in part on “the extent to which the procedure may threaten the safety or health of the individual.” (Winston v. Lee (1985) 470 U.S. 753, 761-762 [84 L.Ed.2d 662, 105 S.Ct. 1611].) Thus, although the intrusion into one’s physical person is generally deemed to involve a significant intrusion on his dignitary interests in personal privacy and bodily integrity (Schmerber, supra, 384 U.S. 757; Cupp v. Murphy (1973) 412 U.S. 291, 295 [36 L.Ed.2d 900, 93 S.Ct. 2000] [fingernail scrapings]), it is widely accepted that the intrusiveness of a blood draw conducted by qualified personnel in an appropriate manner is not so substantial as to require exclusion of the evidence obtained thereby. (Schmerber, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 771; Hedges v. Musco (3d Cir. 1999) 204 F.3d 109, 120; U.S. v. Bullock (5th Cir. 1995) 71 F.3d 171, 176.)
In Schmerber, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the taking of a blood sample “by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices” was constitutionally reasonable. In finding reasonableness, the high court noted “[w]e are thus not presented with the serious questions which would arise if a search involving use of a medical technique, even of *1046the most rudimentary sort, were made by other than medical personnel or in other than a medical environment—for example, if it were administered by police in the privacy of the stationhouse. To tolerate searches under these conditions might be to invite an unjustified element of personal risk of infection and pain.” (Schmerber, supra, 384 U.S. at pp. 771-772.) The court reiterated that its determination of the constitutionality of “minor intrusions into an individual’s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that [the Constitution] permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions.” (Id. at p. 772.)
Here, the blood sample was taken in circumstances similar to those that concerned the Schmerber court. Garcia drew Esayian’s blood at the Vista Detention Center rather than in a hospital or other medical facility, and she was not qualified to do so pursuant to statutes and regulations enacted or promulgated after the issuance of the Schmerber decision. (Stats. 1966, 1st Ex. Sess. 1966, ch. 138, §§ 1-2, pp. 634—637.) Further, Garcia was completely unfamiliar with the regulatory standards for conducting such a blood draw. Although the prosecutor introduced evidence as to the steps Garcia followed in taking Esayian’s blood, the evidence adduced at trial did not establish the applicable medical standards for such a procedure. In addition, the prosecutor did not present any evidence as to the safety and sanitation conditions at the detention facility and whether those conditions would comply with the standards applicable to medical facilities. Thus, the prosecutor did not meet his burden of proof to establish the reasonableness of the blood draw for Fourth Amendment purposes. (See People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 972 [95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044]; see also United States v. Matlock (1974) 415 U.S. 164, 171, 177 [39 L.Ed.2d 242, 94 S.Ct. 988].)
The intrusion into personal privacy of an individual whose blood is being drawn is much greater where the person drawing the blood lacks the qualifications expressly required by law and the knowledge of the applicable standards for conducting such a procedure. Consequently, there is no assurance that the person is familiar, and will comply, with medically accepted standards for the procedure. The fact that the procedure is conducted in a nonmedical facility adds to the risk, and thus the magnitude of the intrusion, absent a showing that the safety and sanitation standards maintained at the detention facility are similar to those that are required for medical facilities. In addition, there is an increased risk from the lack of personnel available to respond in the event of a problem. (Here, although Garcia testified that a nurse was present at the facility at the time she conducted the blood draw, she was uncertain about whether the nurse was a registered nurse and that, in any event, the nurse was not physically present during the blood draw.)
I acknowledge that another California court has reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts. (Ford, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 35-40).) In *1047Ford, the appellate court held that the taking of blood by a phlebotomist, in a nonmedical setting, for alcohol testing purposes did not violate the Fourth Amendment and thus the resulting blood test evidence was not subject to exclusion at trial. (Id. at pp. 36-38.) In reaching this conclusion, the court observed that the phlebotomist used “a standard procedure and materials he obtained from a local hospital” and certified that he withdrew the blood sample in a medically approved manner. (Id. at p. 37.) Based on these circumstances, and the fact that the defendant’s medical experts “did not take exception” to the manner in which the sample was collected, the court held that the intrusiveness of the blood draw was not constitutionally unreasonable in light of the community’s interest in prosecuting driving under the influence cases. (Ibid.)
The circumstances of this case are distinguishable from those involved in Ford. Here the evidence establishes that Garcia was not only statutorily unqualified to conduct the blood draw, but was also not trained in conducting blood draws for purposes of determining a driver’s BAG and did not know what the regulatory standards applicable to such a procedure required. Unlike the phlebotomist in Ford, Garcia did not, and in fact could not, opine that she drew Esayian’s blood in a medically acceptable manner. The testimony of Esayian and Morales likewise failed to establish that this Schmerber requirement was met. Thus, although the court concluded that the prosecutor made a sufficient showing of the reasonableness of the search in Ford, it did so based on substantially different evidence than that presented by the prosecution in this case.
The United States Supreme Court has explained that the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter law enforcement misconduct by prohibiting the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S. 1, 10 [131 L.Ed.2d 34, 115 S.Ct. 1185].) The purpose of the rule is not to cure the constitutional violation, which is already fully accomplished by the illegal search itself, but instead to effectuate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches or seizures by deterring future unlawful police conduct. (Ibid.) Based on this purpose, the application of the rule is restricted to situations in which the rule’s remedial purpose is “effectively advanced,” which in turn depends on “the source of the error or misconduct that led to the unconstitutional search and whether, in light of that source, the deterrent effect of exclusion is sufficient to warrant that sanction.” (People v. Willis (2002) 28 Cal.4th 22, 29-30, 35 [120 Cal.Rptr.2d 105, 46 P.3d 898].)
I believe that the application of the exclusionary rule is appropriate in a situation such as this—where the County’s uses an unqualified and untrained personnel to draw blood from a driver in a nonmedical setting. Although the *1048evidence in the record is not sufficient to establish that the County has a deliberate, persistent and systematic policy of failing to comply with the applicable minimum standards for blood draws, I nonetheless conclude that the exclusion of the evidence in this case will deter the repetition of this situation, which, as discussed above, creates an undue risk to the safety and health of the drivers.
For these reasons, I conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that the prosecution met its burden to show that the blood draw was conducted in a constitutionally reasonable manner and denying Esayian’s motion to suppress the BAC evidence that resulted from the blood draw. Because no other evidence of Esayian’s BAC was introduced at trial, I would reverse the conviction for driving with an excessive BAC.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 12, 2003.