People v. Saldana-Lemus CA5

California Court of Appeal Jan 25, 2024 No. F086066Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a warrantless blood draw was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment because the defendant's medical condition and hospitalization prevented the officers from obtaining a warrant or a breath test in a timely manner.

Issues

Whether a warrantless blood draw performed on an unconscious, hospitalized driver violated the Fourth Amendment.
Whether exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless blood draw when medical treatment and sedation precluded obtaining a warrant or breath test.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Circumstances are exigent when blood-alcohol evidence is dissipating, as it always is, and a pressing health, safety, or law enforcement need takes priority over a warrant application.”

“the Fourth Amendment ‘almost always’ permits a warrantless blood test when police officers do not have a reasonable opportunity for a breath test before hospitalization.”

“I do find that there was no sufficient opportunity for [Fenstermaker] to obtain a consent for a consensual test and that the circumstances of medical treatment and/or sedation against the will of the defendant prevented him from obtaining further information”

Filed 1/25/24 P. v. Saldana-Lemus CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086066 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21904714) v.

ESTEFANI YATSIRI SALDANA-LEMUS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. John F. Vogt and Jon N. Kapetan, Judges. J. M. Malik, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Hannah Janigian Chavez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.

Defendant Estefani Yatsiri Saldana-Lemus brings this appeal to challenge the denial of her motion to suppress the results of a blood draw taken without her consent. The blood draw, which was taken at a hospital following a car accident in which she was the driver, showed defendant tested positive for methamphetamines and had a blood alcohol level (BAC) of 0.15 percent. We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY1 On June 10, 2021, a felony complaint was filed alleging defendant committed the crimes of causing injury while driving while under the influence of alcohol and drugs (Veh. Code,2 § 23153, subd. (g), a felony; count 1), driving with a BAC over .08 percent, causing injury (§ 23153, subd. (b), a felony; count 2), driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage (§ 23153, subd. (a), a felony; count 3), driving while under the influence of a drug (§ 23153, subd. (f), a felony; count 4), and possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a), a misdemeanor; count 5). Each count also contained additional allegations of potential enhancements that might apply if defendant was convicted of the specific crimes charged. On April 26, 2022, a motion to suppress was filed on defendant’s behalf challenging a blood draw that was taken without her consent. This motion was heard on May 17, 2022, as part of the preliminary hearing, and was denied on that same date. Defendant challenged the magistrate’s denial of the motion to suppress through a Penal Code section 995 motion in the trial court. This motion was denied on August 5, 2022.

People v. Saldana-Lemus CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief