Noia v. Cozens

California Court of Appeal Sep 19, 1973 No. Civ. 41239Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe the appellant was the driver of the vehicle, rendering the arrest lawful and the subsequent license suspension valid.

Issues

Whether the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the appellant for drunk driving.
Whether the appellant's arrest was invalid due to the officer's inability to identify the driver while the vehicle was in motion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The facts here show reasonable cause for Chappell to believe Noia was the driver of the automobile.”

“Chappell had probable cause to arrest Noia- when he did.”

“While further investigation might have exonerated or further incriminated Noia, the circumstances were sufficient to justify the arrest when the arrest was made.”

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

The Department of Motor Vehicles suspended the driving privilege of Richard Noia for six months pursuant to Vehicle Code section 13353 after Noia was arrested for drunk driving and refused to submit to a chemical test for blood alcohol. Noia appeals a judgment of the superior court denying a peremptory writ of mandate to compel the department to set aside the suspension, He contends he was not lawfully arrested, that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to believe he was driving a motor vehicle upon a highway.

The facts are undisputed: On the evening of 7 January 1972 Highway Patrolman David Chappell saw an automobile, which appeared to contain only its male driver, weaving erratically at speeds varying from 30 to 50 miles per hour on the Angeles Crest Highway. Chappell followed the automobile for half a mile and then turned on his red light. When the automobile continued on Chappell flashed his high beams and blew his horn. After continuing for a short distance more the automobile pulled into the driveway of a house and drove behind its detached garage. Chappell pulled into the driveway, got out of his patrol car, and walked up the driveway behind the house. He saw no one cross from the garage area to the house during the five to ten seconds the automobile was out of his sight. Chappell found the automobile parked behind the garage with the lights on, the driver’s door open, and the driver gone. Chappell knocked on the back door of the house. Two boys answered and said the automobile belonged to their father. As Chappell walked back toward the automobile, Noia came out of the garage through a side entrance. Not more than a minute or a minute and a half had elapsed since Chappell pulled into the driveway, and there was no one else in the area. Chappell asked Noia for his driver’s license, but Noia showed Chappell a Marine identification card. Noia’s speech was slurred and there was an odor of alcoholic beverage about him. He attempted one field sobriety test but refused to perform any others. Chappell arrested Noia for drunk driving and properly advised him of his rights and responsibilities. Noia then refused to submit to a chemical test for blood alcohol.

Noia argues that his arrest was invalid because Patrolman Chappell was never near enough to the erratically driven automobile to identify Noia as

[694]

Noia v. Cozens

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief