San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

The specific details of Fourth Amendment “search and seizure” law, as it relates to blood-alcohol content tests, has evolved significantly in the last few years. For a long time, law enforcement officers had a lot of latitude regarding the taking of blood from a suspected drunk driver, even without a search warrant. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that narrowed the leeway afforded to officers in obtaining blood draws from suspected drunk drivers. This change in the law provides more opportunity for DUI defendants to get the results of their blood tests excluded from evidence in their criminal cases. To make sure that you have the best defense possible, complete with the exclusion of all inadmissible evidence, make sure to work with an experienced San Francisco DUI attorney.An example of this change in the law, and how it can help DUI defendants, was the case of Samuel, a man arrested for suspicion of DUI in San Mateo County on June 13, 2015. A CHP officer stopped a black Honda and detected the odor of alcohol from inside the car. Samuel underwent four field sobriety tests. He did not do well. The officer did a preliminary alcohol screening. The PAS test results ranged between .144 and .177. The officer arrested Samuel and took him to a nearby CHP station. There, Samuel’s blood was drawn.

At his trial, Samuel argued that the results of his blood test should be excluded from evidence as a result of an improper warrantless seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Samuel eventually won this argument in the Appellate Division. The key to Samuel’s success was the issue of consent. There are a few ways that law enforcement can perform a search or seizure of you or your possessions. One is if there are special circumstances, which the law calls “exigent circumstances.” The other is if you give the officer permission to do the search or seizure.

In Samuel’s case, the prosecution didn’t argue that there were exigent circumstances; the prosecution simply argued that the seizure complied with the Fourth Amendment because Samuel consented. The problem was that the evidence didn’t support this assertion. Even the arresting officer eventually testified that Samuel didn’t explicitly consent to the blood draw. Samuel’s behavior, according to the officer, was more an act of his “submitting” to the blood draw, as opposed to his affirmatively selecting to undergo the blood test.

In your DUI case sometimes, the seemingly smallest details can make the biggest differences. A police officer’s failure to provide you with proper information about your options prior to taking a blood alcohol test can possibly give you the opportunity to have that test’s results excluded from your trial. To make sure that you take advantage of all of the protections the law provides you as a criminal defendant, make sure that you are working with an experienced San Francisco DUI attorney.

A recent case from Santa Clara County offers an example of how these legal protections can work for you. The facts of the case started out as many suspicion-of-drunk-driving encounters with law enforcement probably do. A local police office initiated a traffic stop at around 10 p.m. after spotting a vehicle turn the wrong way down a one-way street in downtown Campbell. During his interaction with the driver, the officer smelled what he thought was alcohol on the driver’s breath, and he identified what he thought to be slurred speech and bloodshot, watery eyes. The driver, Rebecca, said that she had consumed one or two margaritas at a nearby restaurant.

The officer administered three field sobriety tests to Rebecca. It is important to note that, under California law, you are not required to submit to field sobriety tests; you may legally refuse to do them. Refusing to submit to a field sobriety test may motivate the officer who pulled you over to arrest you, but then, so will submitting to them and failing them, which is what Rebecca did.