APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. SA096190) JULIO NZOLAMESO, Defendant and Appellant. 2717, in response to Birchfield strongly indicated that he could not have freely and voluntarily consented.įiled 9/17/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Finally, the court rejected defendant's contention that the Legislature's decision to amend California's implied consent law, Assembly Bill No.
ROBERT LUDK. WHITE PAGES CT TRIAL
Furthermore, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of actual consent and found consent to be voluntary. Rather, defendant was given a choice of tests to choose from and the arresting officer stated that he was subject to criminal penalties only if he refused all options. In this case, the blood test was not defendant's only choice. The court explained that Birchfield prohibits a court from finding implied consent where an arrestee's only choice is to consent to a warrantless blood test or be prosecuted for refusing to do so. _,, did not mandate the invalidation of his actual consent. The court agreed with defendant that there could be no implied consent to a warrantless blood draw upon threat of criminal penalty, but held that Birchfield v. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the results of a blood test on the grounds that the blood testing was a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
0 kommentar(er)
