Justices: Police can arrest DUI suspects in homes with no warrant

[PinnedAndRecessed]

http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/12260465p-12998103c.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Police may enter Californians' homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case testing the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 6-1 decision follows similar rulings in about a dozen other states. A dissenting justice said the majority handed authorities a "free pass" to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest people without warrants.

Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities are prohibited from entering a home and making an arrest without a warrant unless so-called "exigent" circumstances are present. Those include "hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence and the risk of danger to the police or other persons inside or outside of a house, among others.

In this case, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the loss of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspect's blood-alcohol level. Baxter added that a contrary ruling would allow "the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol - or to claim to have done so - or when the suspect evades police capture until he or she is no longer intoxicated."

Baxter and the majority was cautious in saying the decision would not give police carte blanche powers.

"In holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry here, we need not decide, and do not hold, that the police may enter a home without a warrant to effect an arrest of a DUI suspect in every case," Baxter wrote.

In dissent, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the majority was fooling itself. There is "always" the possibility that a suspect might destroy evidence, especially in drug and bookmaking cases in which officers routinely obtain warrants to search and make arrests, she said.

The case concerned the 2003 Santa Barbara arrest of Daniel Thompson, whom a neighbor suspected was driving drunk and notified authorities. They found a parked car matching the description the neighbor provided and went to the front door of the adjoining residence during a summer evening.

The door was open and a woman said the car's driver was asleep. Moments later, Thompson walked by the officers and they entered the house and arrested him. The neighbor confirmed it was the person she suspected of driving intoxicated and throwing an empty vodka bottle out the car door.

Thompson's blood-alcohol level was 0.21, almost three times the legal limit for driving. He was convicted and handed a three-year suspended sentence. He appealed.

A state court of appeal tossed the conviction, saying Thompson's constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court reversed, saying the lower court misapplied search-and-seizure precedent.

Santa Barbara County prosecutor Gerald McC. Franklin said the decision means there is no "absolute bar into entering a house without a warrant for the purpose of arresting somebody for driving under the influence of alcohol."

Thompson's attorney, Richard B. Lennon of Los Angeles, was not immediately available for comment.

 

[Orthonym]

But, hey,

I thought DUI was just a traffic offense, not even a misdemeanor? How could they justify going into someone's house just on a complaint of a traffic offense?

I mean, that's treating it like a felony.

(I must say, though, that when I have a motorcycle which runs, I tend to think of drunken car drivers as dangerous felons. Yah, the sober ones, too.)

 

[Sindawe]

The frellnicks just keep chipping away...

"absolute bar into entering a house without a warrant for the purpose of arresting somebody for driving under the influence of alcohol."

Yes, there is. Its named after a country in Africa.

 

[Vex]

I want to point something out here:

Baxter and the majority was cautious in saying the decision would not give police carte blanche powers.

"In holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry here, we need not decide, and do not hold, that the police may enter a home without a warrant to effect an arrest of a DUI suspect in every case," Baxter wrote.

This clearly shows that even the majority in the opinion specifically want to point out that this decision applies solely on this case. So don't expect this to become a major deal to anyone other than the extreme libertarians or radical anarchists.

And, quite frankly, I'm going to have to say I'm relieved to see the justices hold someone accountable. How many people are going to read this and think twice next time they feel "just alright" to drive home a little drunk. Like it or not, this decision saves lives.... and at what cost? This:

Thompson's blood-alcohol level was 0.21, almost three times the legal limit for driving. He was convicted and handed a three-year suspended sentence.

 

[Sindawe]

To this laymans eyes, it sets a precedent that can and most likely WILL be abused Vex.

I don't like the white-trash Jimmy-Bob down the street, his kids run wild and his bushes have not been trimmed in ages. I know Jimmy-Bob has a few brews after work on Fridays, 'cause I've seen him coming home with a six-pack every Friday for the past six months, and see the same sixer in the trash on Saturday morning. I'll wait a bit some Friday, then call the cops complaining that he was weaving all over the road and could barely walk to his door. Cops come and enter Jimmy-Bob's home despite his protests of them needing a warrant, maybe even thump him a few when he "Resists a lawful order". Well what do you know, his BAC is 0.09. SLAM! DUI for that no good Jimmy-Bob. Good-bye drivers license, good-bye job, good-bye Jimmy-Bob.

Never mind that Jimmy-Bob only drinks in the privacy of his own home, never drinks and drives and has an immaculate driving record. Its all nice and legal thanks to this ruling.

 

[Husker1911]

Pre-fricking-posterous! The water continues to heat toward boiling. The frog is sweating.

 

[Orthonym]

Was it proven that he'd been driving? Don't get me wrong, other people on the road, driving motor vehicles, who are drunk, frighten the dog poo out of me when I'm on the road, even on foot.

Should I be more worried about my drunken neighbors running me down, than setting a precedent for policemen busting into people's houses to chase down misdemeanants?

 

[Vex]

To this laymans eyes, it sets a precedent that can and most likely WILL be abused Vex.

I agree that someone will attempt to abuse the decision, but I don't see any prosecuting attorney successfully using this as case law with the "case by case" language in the majority's opinion.

I don't like the white-trash Jimmy-Bob down the street, his kids run wild and his bushes have not been trimmed in ages. I know Jimmy-Bob has a few brews after work on Fridays, 'cause I've seen him coming home with a six-pack every Friday for the past six months, and see the same sixer in the trash on Saturday morning. I'll wait a bit some Friday, then call the cops complaining that he was weaving all over the road and could barely walk to his door. Cops come and enter Jimmy-Bob's home despite his protests of them needing a warrant, maybe even thump him a few when he "Resists a lawful order". Well what do you know, his BAC is 0.09. SLAM! DUI for that no good Jimmy-Bob. Good-bye drivers license, good-bye job, good-bye Jimmy-Bob.

There has to be more to the story than what this article states, as I will pin-point at the end of this post.

Was it proven that he'd been driving? Don't get me wrong, other people on the road, driving motor vehicles, who are drunk, frighten the dog poo out of me when I'm on the road, even on foot.

These are facts that any novice defense attorney would want exploit in a DUI case... and mind you, the State has the burden of proving the crime before the defense has the burden of proving innocence. Did the State prove the elements required to warrant the charges? I think we can all agree that the subject in this case would have had to have been driving, that there was proof positive that the time between him driving and the BAC test being done had been documented as evidence, and that the gathering of evidence in the case could only be relevant after "hot pursuit."

How about some more elements of the case?

The case concerned the 2003 Santa Barbara arrest of Daniel Thompson, whom a neighbor suspected was driving drunk and notified authorities. They found a parked car matching the description the neighbor provided and went to the front door of the adjoining residence during a summer evening.

The door was open and a woman said the car's driver was asleep. Moments later, Thompson walked by the officers and they entered the house and arrested him. The neighbor confirmed it was the person she suspected of driving intoxicated and throwing an empty vodka bottle out the car door.

I think it's clear what happened here (BTW: this is where I point out that there is more to the story than meets the eye). The police go to the house to see if the Jim Bob the Drunk is around. A woman says he's sleeping. Moments later he walks by the officer, and then the officers enter the house to arrest him. Now, there's a crucial time line here.... Officers at front door. Subject walks by them. They enter the house. So, we can discern that the subject was entering the house. He wasn't leaving, otherwise why would the Officers have to enter the house to get him? So this begs the question.... When the Subject walked past the Officers, where was he coming from? His car? What did he say? What other evidence did the Officers gather for the case?

I'm going to try and find the police report from this case. It's all public information, and I feel the need to shed some light on this case before this thread gets out of hand and starts a revolution.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

First, the title of this is misleading in the extreme. As noted above, the court went out of the way to say the opposite in their decision. This does not apply to every case but just to this specific set of facts and to claim otherwise is downright disingenuous.

Second, those of you who feel this is an unreasonable extension of police power constituting a "boiling poiint" might familiarize yourself with some of the decisions written before 1960. We have a long ways to go before we even slide back to what was traditionally the level of police power enjoyed for the majority of this country's existence.

 

[GregGry]

I thought DUI was just a traffic offense, not even a misdemeanor?

In my state a 3rd DWI is a felony...

 

[Master Blaster]

You know a few years ago a neighbor of mine was hit head-on by a drunk driver who was on the wrong side of the road with his headlights out. This happened right in front of my house.
The ass tried to get out of his car and leave the scene before the cops arrived. My neighbor a mother of three children was on her way home from work at 7 pm ( it was novermber and pitch dark) and she sufferred a broken arm, a broken collar bone and three broken ribs.

The drunk scum bag had a huge cut on his forehead, we could see his skull.

He tried to run away after he came to, after he cursed at me and another neighbor, I and the neigbor took him down. soon after the police and the ambulance arrived. The officer later thanked us, and told us this turd with sveral DUI convictions, had his license permanantly revoked after he was in another similar accident 5 months before.
He was trying to leave becuase drunk as he was, he knew that if he could leave the scene the police could not prove he was drunk while driving.

 

[sparx]

Moments later he walks by the officer, and then the officers enter the house to arrest him. Now, there's a crucial time line here.... Officers at front door. Subject walks by them. They enter the house. So, we can discern that the subject was entering the house. He wasn't leaving, otherwise why would the Officers have to enter the house to get him? So this begs the question.... When the Subject walked past the Officers, where was he coming from? His car? What did he say? What other evidence did the Officers gather for the case?

He could have walked past them, in front of them. For example, going from the bedroom to the living room if those two rooms had a hallway or some other connection that exists in front of the doorway inside the home. At least that's the way I was picturing the scenario when reading the story. Not that he was entering the house and walked passed them as he entered, but already in the home and was seen as he walked past in front of them from one area of the house to another.

 

[dfaugh]

Much as I think that DUI/DWI should carry severe penalties(serious danger to others), this is CLEARY overstepping the bounds of the 4Th ammendment...I wonder what type of circumstances they expect to use this in.

OK, so I have a bit of "brain fade" and almost cause an accident(it happens)... I go home and start drinking a few beers...a couple hours later the cops show up, and I'm now well over the legal limit for DUI.... So, now they can arrest me for DUI? Where does it end?

Of course we're talking the Peoples Republic of California here, so I guese any attempt at "reasonableness" is too much to be expected.

 

[Lupinus]

And they are going to prove how exactally he didn't start drinking once home?

Or at the very least that the ammount which brought him over the limit was digested while at home.

Any half decent lawyer should be able to get it thrown out easily

 

[slzy]

a friend of mine was side swipped by a drunk,he called the cops on the cell,followed the drunk home. when the police arrived they yanked his drunk ass out. of course there was evidence he had left the scene.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

This case is what my old partner and I would refer to as a "leaky bag of excriment". There are so many holes in the case that I don't even see the point of arguing whether or not you can go into the house without a warrant to arrest him.

First of all you can't testify to operation of the vehicle, which is the very first element of DWI, because you never saw him driving the car.

Secondly, as was pointed out numerous times, there is no way to prove that he did not drink after he got home and out of the car even IF he was proved to be driving it.

Third they don't sound like they even bothered to give him any field sobriety tests. That right there is horribly wrong since the officer makes the determination if there is a reason to arrest on the street with FST's and the breathylizer/alcotest is just a confirmation of that officer's decision.

If I had brought a guy like that into the station and told my sgt. those facts he'd smack me upside my head and be mad at me the rest of the night.

 

[HankB]

Dbl0Kevin: Pretty well summed up my take on this. +1.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I see this getting abused easily.

Imagine, angry neighbor calls cops and reports you for driving while intoxicated. Cops come and now legally invade your home, arrest you, and start processing you. (was there a ruling about forcing to submit blood for BAC?) You refuse to submit for BAC and your license is suspended for a year.

how many times will this happen before the ninth circuit gets to hear a case?

 

[ScottsGT]

But here's how a Judge gets away with it:

http://www.atgpress.com/guest/gu062.htm

Lets see if we've got this straight: South Carolina Chief Supreme Court Justice Jean Toal got loaded at a party and on the way home about 8:55 p.m. in her Chrysler van she sideswiped somebody else's parked Toyota. Rather than stop and take care of an estimated $4,500 in damage--running the risk of going to jail--she left the scene, drove to her Shandon home and was tending to her knitting by the time the Columbia police figured out who she was and came calling.

While they were there, the police said they smelled alcohol on her. She told them she was unaware she hit another car because had been drinking. She also said she had the windows closed, the air-conditioner going and although she wasn't wearing her hearing aid, she was listening to a taped crime novel.

Did the Columbia police ask her to take a sobriety test? Well, no, they didn't. Would they have asked any of us to take the test? Maybe. But we're not Supreme Court justices.

Being one of the Supremes, Toal decided being a hit-and-run culprit looked bad for the court so she paid a $300 fine, took a driving course, publicly apologized and asked the Supreme Court's disciplinary office to conduct an ethics investigation. Almost as quickly as the Supreme Court has dealt with ethics complaints against our solicitor Donnie Myers--we're talking 18 months--Toal released the findings.

Guess what? The disciplinary office found no ethics violations on Justice Toal's part.

Leaving the scene of an accident may be a crime but apparently it is not an ethics violation. Driving under the influence must not be either.

Stupid maybe. Not unethical.

It would be instructive to learn how the disciplinary office reached their conclusions. But here's the catch. They won't tell us. They won't even tell the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Such investigations are conducted in secrecy and will remain shrouded in mystery.

Now if you want to discuss a real rush job, it has taken the court longer than that to deal with ethics charges against Donnie Myers.

Did Myers sideswipe anybody or drink and drive? Maybe but nobody's caught him at it.

What Myers did was turn over a homicide investigation to his principal assistant, a lawyer he trusted. When a conversation between the suspected killer and his lawyer was illegally taped at the Lexington County sheriff's department, did the assistant let Myers know?

No, Myers says, and the evidence supports him. Many months later, as the case was moving to trial, Myers learned of the tape and immediately ordered it released to the defense.

Myers has operated under this cloud of ethical suspicion ever since. Of course, he is only a prosecutor, elected by the people. Jean Toal is a high-ranking Supreme Court Justice.

11-21-2002 Lexington County Chronicle & The Dispatch-News

Oh, and Donnie Myers? He got his too!
http://www.wltx.com/news/news19.aspx?storyid=29774
Lexington (WLTX) - Longtime 11th Circuit Solicitor Donnie Myers has pleaded guilty Wednesday to charges of driving while impaired and possession of an open container.

Police in Asheville, North Carolina arrested Myers back on April 29th. After his arrest, he told the State newspaper that he had been pulled over for not using a turn signal and for driving 10 miles an hour less than the posted speed limit.

Officers informed him that he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.11 percent or 0.12 percent after two Breathalyzer tests.

Drivers with blood-alcohol levels of 0.08 percent or higher are presumed to be intoxicated in North Carolina.

Myers said there was an open can of beer in his
county-issued Lincoln when he was stopped, but the prosecutor said it wasn't his drink and he didn't know who put it the car.

Myers voluntarily turned in the county car assigned to him back in May.

Myers released a statement on Wednesday saying the following:

"It is my belief that a person should accept responsibility and be held accountable for his or her actions. For over 30 years, I have argued for the accountability of others in some of the most heinous crimes our state has seen. This principle applies even more to me. I have taken responsibility and held myself accountable for my actions."

"Numerous lawyers in South and North Carolina have urged me to request a trial. I reject that advice and hold myself to a higher standard."

"I believe in our criminal justice system. It is a fair one that gives a person the right to have a jury decide his or her fate. But I never considered asking a judge or jury to decide the issues. I decided them myself. Faced with a difficult decision the early morning hours of April 29th, I made the wrong choice. I made a mistake. I was wrong. I am solely to blame. I alone am responsible. Therefore, on Wednesday I pled guilty to impaired driving in Asheville."

"I did not ask the judge for leniency or mercy. There is no excuse for my actions. Just because a person is a judge, lawyer, police officer, legislator, public official, or doctor, they should not be punished more severely. But as a solicitor, I hold myself to a higher standard and deserve no leniency or mercy."

"I am ashamed and embarrassed. I apologize for my actions. I am especially sorry for embarrassing my wife, Vance, the citizens of the 11th Circuit, and my friends across South Carolina. I ask for your forgiveness and your continued friendship."

A judge sentenced Myers to a suspended 60 day jail sentence. That means he will not spend time behind bars unless he violates his one year probation period.

In addition, Myers paid $400 in fines and court costs. The judge also sentenced him to a 30 day driving restriction, which means he is not allowed to drive in North Carolina for that time period.

Myers also tells News19 he has asked the county to sell the car he was driving the night of his arrest. He would like to see the proceeds given to his office to fund another assistant.

 

[Vex]

And they are going to prove how exactally he didn't start drinking once home?

Or at the very least that the ammount which brought him over the limit was digested while at home.

Any half decent lawyer should be able to get it thrown out easily

You're right.... but only if the entire story of the case is present in this 200 word news article. You're assuming the reporting media here is telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This clearly isn't so.

This case is what my old partner and I would refer to as a "leaky bag of excriment". There are so many holes in the case that I don't even see the point of arguing whether or not you can go into the house without a warrant to arrest him.

So many holes in the case based on this news article. Again, we have someone reading this short blip and deciding they know the entire story, the cops were wrong, the DA was wrong, the judges were wrong.... seems to be an irresponsible, and quite assinine assumption to me.

Dbl0Kevin: Pretty well summed up my take on this. +1.

Read my response above, it applies to you, too.

Imagine, angry neighbor calls cops and reports you for driving while intoxicated. Cops come and now legally invade your home, arrest you, and start processing you. (was there a ruling about forcing to submit blood for BAC?) You refuse to submit for BAC and your license is suspended for a year.

If this was the case, then I would agree that it's pretty ridiculous. But this isn't the case. You're the fourth person I'm responding to here that has read this news article, and suddenly you're an expert on the entire incident. Get real.

The police have specific things they need to gather before a court can successfully try a case: probable cause and evidence. This news article doesn't say whether they did or didn't have these things.... and of course, you're going to be pre-disposed that the cops are violating the constitution and it's the end of the world.

Want part of the real story? This here isn't exactly true:

The case concerned the 2003 Santa Barbara arrest of Daniel Thompson, whom a neighbor suspected was driving drunk and notified authorities. They found a parked car matching the description the neighbor provided and went to the front door of the adjoining residence during a summer evening.

Let's see what the court says about the incident:

On July 21, 2003, Madelene Orvos returned to her apartment complex in Santa Barbara from a walk at the beach with her dogs. She found defendant Daniel Lyon Thompson passed out in a white Ford Bronco in her assigned parking space. A neighbor came out, woke defendant up, and asked him to leave. Before defendant left, Orvos saw him stumble around, toss an empty vodka bottle out of the Bronco, and pass out a second time in the vehicle. She could tell he was
intoxicated.

Having seen defendant in this condition on many prior occasions, Orvos
decided this time to follow defendant and called 911 to report the situation as she got into her car. Defendant ran a red light and drove about 70 miles per hour when he got onto the freeway, at one point going “way to his right . . . close to the concrete on the side of the road.” He exited the freeway and turned right onto State Street from the center lane. After defendant turned right onto South Ontare Road, Orvos fell behind because he was running stop signs and driving too fast in a neighborhood where children were present. Fortunately, Santa Barbara Police Officer Adrian Gutierrez arrived at 7:15 p.m., just as Orvos lost track of the Bronco. Gutierrez instructed Orvos to wait at the parking lot of the nearby golf course while he continued the pursuit.

Officer Gutierrez proceeded to 3610 San Jose Lane, which was the address
of the Bronco’s registered owner, and found the white Bronco parked in front.
When Officer Ryan Dejohn arrived to assist, Gutierrez went back to update Orvos and ask her to follow him to identify the vehicle. After Orvos did so, Gutierrez
touched the hood of the vehicle and discovered the hood was warm, indicating the Bronco had been driven very recently. He and Dejohn approached the front door, which was wide open, and rang the doorbell.

Slavka Kovarick answered the door. Officer Dejohn asked her who had
been driving the Bronco. Kovarick said that Daniel owned the vehicle. Dejohn
asked to speak to him, but Kovarick said he was asleep. When Dejohn asked
whether she could wake Daniel up, Kovarick entered a bedroom directly to the left of the front door. She remained there a few moments and came back to tell them she could not wake Daniel up. She also refused to let the officers inside and instead walked away.

Officer Dejohn heard people speaking softly down the hall and then saw a
tall shirtless White male, about 45 years old, leave the house and go into the
backyard. This man, later identified as defendant, matched the description Orvos had provided of the driver. When defendant turned around, he made eye contact with Dejohn, who motioned for him to come to the front door. Defendant reentered the house and approached the officers by exiting the bedroom door near the entryway. He was staggering or swaying slightly, slurring his speech, and gave off a strong odor of alcohol. Dejohn, who addressed defendant as Daniel, explained that they suspected him of driving under the influence of alcohol and wanted to talk to him and perform some tests, but defendant refused to cooperate. As defendant began to walk away, Dejohn entered the house. He was afraid defendant might flee, so he placed his hand on defendant’s shoulder. Defendant turned around and grabbed the doorjamb to the bedroom near the entryway. Officer Gutierrez entered the house only to assist Dejohn in effecting the arrest.

After defendant was handcuffed, Orvos identified defendant as the driver.
His blood test revealed a blood-alcohol level of 0.21 percent. On the way to the jail, defendant told Officer Dejohn, “I’ll kick your ****ing ass.”

Following a hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, the trial court
found there was probable cause to arrest defendant based on Orvos’s report of the driver’s behavior, defendant’s resemblance to the description Orvos had provided of the driver, and defendant’s visible intoxication. Under these circumstances, it was a “reasonable implication” that defendant was the driver. Relying on People v. Hampton (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 27, the trial court also found that the warrantless entry to arrest defendant was justified by exigent circumstances—i.e., the need to preserve the evidence of defendant’s blood-alcohol level. Defendant then pleaded no contest to driving with a blood-alcohol level in excess of 0.08 percent (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)) and to resisting an officer in the performance of his duties (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted two prior convictions within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 23546. He was sentenced to 24 months, execution of which was suspended for three years under
specified conditions.

This is from the court records found here (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/)

Make your own opinion of the case now that you have real story. Note the bolded sections, of which I've taken the liberty to highlight information that you didn't find in the news article.

Also, I want to point something else out: In the news article, it states that a "neighbor" witnessed the subject driving drunk. We assume it's the subject's neighbor, but in reality it's not. In fact, the person who reported the drunk driving had to follow the subject on the freeway, through red lights, going 70mpg.... damn, it seems she wasn't HIS neighbor, now was it? Biased news article, and this is proof positive that the media can't be trusted to report everything.

 

[Sindawe]

Vex:Thank you for taking the effort to get the court data on this. Based on that, the arrest DOES indeed look valid and NOT a case the cops getting a tip and going gang busters to arrest somebody. I retract my earlier comments, but I'll leave them in place for historical purposes.

 

[Pilgrim]

I thought DUI was just a traffic offense, not even a misdemeanor? How could they justify going into someone's house just on a complaint of a traffic offense?

In California, DUI is a misdemeanor unless the accused has three prior convictions in the past seven years, then it is charged as a felony. Also, if someone is injured in a traffic accident not the driver/accused, then it is also charged as a felony.

Pilgrim

 

[Molon Labe]

it sets a precedent that can and most likely WILL be abused Vex.

Are you implying the government will abuse its authority???

 

[Standing Wolf]

Well, yeah, but we're not a police state, since after all, most people don't drink and drive.

 

[Orthonym]

I'll note that our current President, and also the Vice-President have been busted for drunken driving, the Veep twice. I voted for'em twice, anyway.

Lesser Evil, y'know.