Page 1
Drawing Blood Sample From Suspect Who Was Unconscious Was Permissible—C.A.
Where Evidence in Fatal Crash Pointed to Drunk-Driving, Justice Wiley Says, There Was No Fourth Amendment Breach in Conducting Chemical Test
By a MetNews Staff Writer
There was no Fourth Amendment violation where blood was drawn, in the absence of a search warrant, from an unconscious man, about to go into surgery, who was suspected of causing a fatal accident while driving in a drunken state, the Court of Appeal for this district has held.
Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. of Div. Eight wrote the opinion upholding a judgment of conviction of Alberic Roland Nault for second degree murder. Nault had four prior convictions for drunk driving.
At issue was whether Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Hayden A. Zacky was right in determining that two blood samples drawn from Nault, at an investigating officer’s request, by a nurse at a hospital to which the defendant had been rushed by helicopter were admissible under the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement.
A California Highway Patrol officer, at the scene of the crash of Nault’s 18-wheeler truck and a Honda, had gone to his car to get a kit to obtain a breath sample from Nault but was deterred from doing so by the suspect being spirited away by the helicopter medics. Skid marks at the
scene indicated that Nault had traveled at a high speed and was solely responsible for the mishap.
Wiley wrote:
“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 fact the human body continuously metabolizes alcohol is not enough….
“When a driver is unconscious, the general rule is a warrant is not needed….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….
“The general rule governs here. Exigent circumstances justified this blood draw.”
The jurist continued:
“Nault created the exigency by injuring himself badly. He was unconscious and had to be helicoptered to surgery. Whoever called for the helicopter judged the situation dire. Nault does not suggest this decision was a manipulation. Caring for Nault’s medical need left no time for a breath test.”
Nault, owner of a painting and waterproofing company in Atascadero, was convicted both of second degree murder and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, with sentences of 15 years to life in state prison on each count to be served concurrently. Wiley’s opinion orders that the sentence on the latter count be stayed under Penal Code §654 which bars multiple convictions for the same conduct (the statutory double jeopardy provision).
The case is People v. Nault, 2021 S.O.S. 6722.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company