mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Challenging Seizure of Client’s Blood, Breath and
Urine Post-McNeely
Daniel TaylorKen HamiltonVentura County Deputy Public Defenders
![Page 2: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1966
![Page 3: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1966• Muhammad Ali refused to go to war.• Miranda v. Arizona decided by SCOTUS.• Ronald Reagan becomes governor of CA.• First episode of Star Trek.• Schmerber v. California decided by SCOTUS
which held a nonconsensual warrantless blood draw was constitutional when justified by exigent circumstances.
![Page 4: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Schmerber v. California (1966)
“The officer in the present case, however, 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."
![Page 5: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Schmerber v. California (1966)
“Particularly in a case such as this, where time had to be taken to bring the accused to a hospital and to investigate the scene of the accident, there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant.”
![Page 6: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Schmerber v. California (1966)
“Given these special facts, we conclude that the attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner's arrest.”
![Page 7: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2013• Government contractor Edward Snowden
discloses U.S. government engaged in mass surveillance program of U.S. Citizen communication.
• Nelson Mandela, anti-apartheid lawyer and first black president of South Africa, who was imprisoned by government for 27 years, died.
• McNeely v. Missouri decided by SCOTUS, reaffirmed Schmerber: it’s still good law 47 years later.
![Page 8: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
McNeely v. Missouri (2013)
“The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.”
![Page 9: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
McNeely v. Missouri (2013)
“We conclude that it does not, and we hold, consistent with general Fourth Amendment principles, that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.”
![Page 10: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
McNeely v. Missouri (2013)“Noting that ‘[s]earch warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings,’ we reasoned that ‘absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned,’ even when the search was conducted following a lawful arrest.”
![Page 11: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
McNeely v. Missouri (2013)
“‘One well-recognized exception,’ and the one at issue in this case, ‘applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’”
![Page 12: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
McNeely v. Missouri (2013)
“To determine whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant, this Court looks to the totality of circumstances.”“Our decision in Schmerber applied this totality of the circumstances approach.”
![Page 13: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Why Do So Many 11550’s & DUIs Plead Out?
![Page 14: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Since 1966:Absent an exigency--based on the
totality of the circumstances—nonconsensual, Warrantless Blood
(& Urine) Tests Violate The 4th Amendment Protection Against
Unreasonable Search And Seizure
![Page 15: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
What Can we Do About It? File More Suppression Motions!
• You can’t win if you don’t play• Create opportunities for DA mistakes (play for
the fumble)– Brand New DDAs– Sheriff’s Rotated not long ago– Stop & Investigation by Different LEOs– DRE classes with out of area cops
• Good opportunity to depose adverse witness
![Page 16: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Don’t Overcomplicate McNeely
• Your home is your castle and your body is your temple: search inside of either generally requires a warrant or clear exception to warrant requirement
• Exigency requires dissipation + other special facts (No per se Exigency)
• Consent must be free and voluntary and not a mere submission to authority
![Page 17: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Argument Outline
• Warrantless Searches = Presumed Unreasonable• Blood/Urine/Breath Test = Search • DA’s Burden To Prove Warrant Exception• No Exigency Here• No Consent Here • DA Didn’t Meet Their Burden
![Page 18: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Warrantless SearchPresumed Unreasonable
“searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement unless they fall within one of a few narrow exceptions thereto.” – Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) (plur. opn. by
Stewart, J.)” (People v. Osband (1996); see also Mincey v. Arizona (1978)
![Page 19: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Blood Test = Search
• Blood collection and testing constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment– Schmerber v. California (1966)
![Page 20: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Urine Test = Search “Because it is clear that the collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable, the Federal Courts of Appeals have concluded unanimously, and we agree, that these intrusions must be deemed searches under the Fourth Amendment.” – Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass‘n (1989)
![Page 21: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Breath Test = Search“It is not disputed that the administration of a breath test is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and therefore subject to the requirements of that amendment.”
Burnett v. Anchorage(9th Cir. 1986) 806 F.2d 1447
![Page 22: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Warrantlessness means search presumed illegal (we start out winning)
DA’s Burden To Prove Warrant Exception:
(1) consent or (2) special facts to justify
exigency
![Page 23: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Drugs In urine sample even less of Exigency than blood draw for DUI
Quality Of Evidence Not Diminished For Drugs In Urine– DUI Blood Test Evidence = Exact BAC
• Purpose = determine if BAC over .08– 11550 Urine Drug Test = Presence Of Drugs
• Purpose = evidence of drug exposure consistent with observed symptoms
• Does not show “Under The Influence”• Does not show “Level of Impairment”• Merely shows “History of Exposure”
• Drugs in urine detectable for days
![Page 25: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Lack of Consent
Our Clients Are Not Asked
![Page 26: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Submission vs. Consent
• Question is not was taking of sample “forcible,” but whether it was consensual or– Coerced– Compelled– Submission to claim of lawful authority
• DAs Don’t Know The Difference• Advisement Proves No Free & Voluntary Consent
![Page 27: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Sheriff’s Dept.
“You do not have a right to
refuse to take this test”
![Page 28: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Ventura PD
“You do not have a Constitutional right to
refuse to provide this sample”
![Page 29: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Oxnard PD
“You do not have a right torefuse to take this test”
![Page 30: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Port Hueneme PD(Bad Version)
“…your refusal can and will be used against you in
court as an indication of your conscientiousness of
guilt in attempting to suppress evidence.”
![Page 31: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Port Hueneme PD (Great Version)
“UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW AND THE US CONST., YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO
A CHEMICAL TEST”
![Page 32: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
5th vs. 4th Amendment
• Source Of Admonitions– People v. Sudduth (1966)– People v. Sarkissian (1978)
• Admonitions Related To 5th A. Miranda– Bodily Fluids ≠ Testimonial
• 4th Still Applies To Searches
![Page 33: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
“You are required by law to provide a sample”
“. . .the State has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority.”
Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 497.
![Page 34: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
No Written Advisement?Circumstances at play in evaluating lack of free and voluntary consent
– Coercion– Duress– No “Informed” Consent
• Lie• Ruse• Language Barriers
– Custody Status– Age– Mental Infirmity – Use of Force at time of Arrest?– Intoxication?– Exchange for promise of leniency or other benefit?
![Page 35: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Statutory “Implied Consent” Sufficient?VC sec. 23612(a)(1)(A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent…(applies DUI’s only; no IC For 11550s)
“a person who cooperates with a chemical test pursuant to the implied consent law has given real and voluntary consent, excusing police from obtaining a warrant.” People v. Harris (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 (transferred to Court of Appeal with their decision pending)
“Independent of [AZ’s implied consent law], the Fourth Amendment requires an arrestee's consent to be voluntary to justify a warrantless blood draw.”State v. Butler (2013) 232 Ariz. 84; See also Reeder v. State (Tex. App. 2014) 428 S.W.3d 924.
![Page 36: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
DA Didn’t Meet Their Burden
• DA’s Burden• Limited To Evidence Presented At Hearing • DA’s Arguments Are Not Evidence• DA’s Inferences Cannot Inferred From This
Record• DA’s Asking The Court To Speculate
![Page 37: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Argument Recap
• Warrantless Searches = Presumed Unreasonable• Blood/Urine/Breath Test = Search • DA’s Burden To Prove Warrant Exception• No Exigency Here• No Consent Here • DA Didn’t Meet Their Burden of proving
exigency or consent: suppression warranted
![Page 38: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
The “McNeely” Motion
• Minimalist (Wilder) Motion• give adequate notice of Accepted
Medical Practice (“AMP”) issue for blood• Why file a reply?• Post Evidentiary Brief?• Pocket Brief?
![Page 39: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Consequences for withholding consent (i.e., refusing)
![Page 40: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
The Cost of saying “No”VC sec. 23612 and 23577 provide for criminal and administrative penalties for refusing to submit (give consent) to a chemical test upon being arrested for and convicted of DUI:
• min. of 48 hours jail• license suspended for 1+ years
![Page 41: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Can you be punished for failing to consent to a search?
• A resident’s refusal to open a door on proper police demand, in other words, when the police had the right to enter absent the resident’s consent, cannot constitute a violation of Penal Code section 148.
People v. Wetzel (1974)• Fourth Amendment provides constitutional
right to refuse to consent to entry and search; asserting it cannot be a crime.
United States v. Prescott (9th Cir. 1978)
![Page 42: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Can your refusal be used against you as consciousness of guilt?
•Admission of refusal doesn’t violate Miranda. South Dakota v. Neville (1983) Not a 4th Amend. case.•Admission of evidence of a defendant's refusal to consent to a warrantless entry of his residence violates the privilege to be free from comment upon the assertion of a constitutional right. People v. Wood (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 803.
![Page 43: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Does McNeely Apply pre-Mcneely?(or are we hosed by Davis?)
• Wrong question!• Right Question: Does Schmerber apply pre-McNeely?• No Published Binding CA Authority either way yet• Other jurisdiction’s authority is largely disappointing • Distinguish Davis, “As a result, the Court [in
Gant] adopted a new, two-part rule…”• with McNeely: “Our decision in Schmerber applied
this totality of the circumstances approach.”
![Page 44: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
What’s Happening Now?
![Page 45: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
DAs
• DAs know consent is the issue• Coaching cops before hearing• Leading cops during hearing• DAs frequently miss other issues
![Page 46: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
LEOs
• Got Training on McNeely• LEOs Know Consent is the issue• New forms are coming• Altering old forms• Testifying/Lying = didn’t give admonitions• Testifying/Lying = “Voluntary” test • Coercing – Urine test = Cite & Release– No Test = Jail
![Page 47: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Blood Draw WarrantsPC sec. 1524(a)(13) (Amend. 2013)
A search warrant may be issued upon any of the followinggrounds:
When a sample of the blood of a person constitutes evidence that tends to show a violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code and the person from whom the sample is being sought has refused an officer's request to submit to, or has failed to complete, a blood test as required by Section 23612 of the Vehicle Code, and the sample will be drawn from the person in a reasonable, medically approved manner. This paragraph is not intended to abrogate a court's mandate to determine the propriety of the issuance of a search warrant on a case-by-case basis.
![Page 48: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
![Page 49: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Judges Granting Post McNeely Motions
• Wright• Campbell• Kelegrew• Lund• Guasco• Redmond• Inumerable• Eskin• Taylor
![Page 50: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Judges Pre McNeely Cases
• Most Judges buy the Davis argument• Eskin – Stated does not believe Davis applies
• Redmond– Didn’t Address Davis
![Page 51: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
File your motions to challenge seizure of blood, breath, and urine
• Warrantless Tests Presumptively Violate the 4th Amendment• No warrant: Valid reason for a
1538.5• DA must prove consent or
exigency (and often cannot)
![Page 52: mcneely powerpoint august 5 2014](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062522/5880d95e1a28ab9c3a8b6adb/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)