Thursday, May 3, 2018
Page No.:1
Court of Appeal:
Abandoned Car That Hit Utility Pole Didn’t Justify Rousting Vehicle Owner From Bed
Justice Reardon Says Lack of Warrant Rendered Subsequent Arrest For Drunk Driving Unlawful, Invalidating License Suspension
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The First District Court of Appeal held yesterday that where an unoccupied car was found by an officer crashed into a utility pole, a license plate check showed the owner to reside nearby, and an occupant of the house gave another officer permission to enter, it was impermissible to go into the bedroom of the vehicle’s owner and require him to come outside to take a field sobriety test.
Because the subsequent arrest of the man for drunk driving was unlawful, Justice Timothy A. Reardon of Div. Four said in an unpublished opinion, the Superior Court erred in declining to issue a writ of mandate to the Department of Motor Vehicles ordering it to lift the four-month suspension of Nicholas David Miller’s driver’s license.
Testifying at the DMV hearing was California Highway Patrol Officer Christopher Pettyjohn, who found the damaged automobile at 1:38 a.m. on July 31, 2014, and was summoned to Miller’s house by an Officer Adams who had rousted the sleeping Miller from his bed.
Articulated Goals
Reardon wrote:
“Here, the explanation for Officer Adams’s warrantless entry into Miller’s bedroom was based on the twin goals of checking on Miller’s well-being and following up on the vehicle collision. Yet, when Officer Adams discovered Miller was asleep in his bed, Officer Adams did not say, ‘I’m glad to see that you are safe, sir; I’ll be on my way now.’ He did not say, ‘Sorry for the disturbance, but your vehicle was located on the side of the road, stuck to a utility pole.’ No, instead he directed Miller outside, clad only in his boxers and t-shirt, to await the arrival of Officer Pettyjohn.”
The jurist said the “exigency exception” to the requirement of a warrant did not exist because that requires probable cause to believe that entry is necessary to prevent destruction of evidence or escape.
‘Community Caretaking Exception
The “community caretaking exception”—permitting a warrantless entry to investigate an emergency—also was inapplicable, he declared, explaining:
“[T]he officer did not have any facts that would have led a reasonable person to believe entry was necessary to aid life or limb. While there had been a report of a single car collision, that report came nearly two hours before the officers arrived at Miller’s house. At the scene, there was nothing to suggest the driver or any possible passengers had suffered any serious injuries. There was no report that the air bags had deployed or that broken glass and/or blood had been found at the scene. Indeed, the vehicle had been described as having only sustained ‘moderate damage.’ At Miller’s house there was also no evidence that Miller or a passenger had been injured. Although Miller’s roommate permitted Officer Adams to enter the house and its common areas, the roommate did not have authority to grant access to Miller’s private bedroom….As nothing suggested that Miller was in danger of physical harm, Officer Adam’s warrantless entry into Miller’s bedroom was not justified under the emergency doctrine.”
Reardon said that because “Miller’s detention was not lawful, his arrest, following his failed field sobriety and breath tests, was similarly unlawful” and cannot be the basis for a license suspension.
The case is Miller v. Department of Motor Vehicles, A147050.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company