Monday, May 18, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Forced Blood Draw Allowed Despite Consent to Breath Test
Opinion Says Judge Erred in Suppressing Evidence of DUI Suspect’s High Level of Alcohol in System Based on Officer Omitting From Affidavit in Support of Warrant Any Mention of Man’s Willingness to Take Chemical Test
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Sixth District Court of Appeal has issued a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to scrap its order suppressing the results of a blood test conducted on a drunk driver who caused a death, rejecting his contention that an officer’s application for a search warrant was tarnished by virtue of a material omission in not revealing that he had agreed to a breath test.
“The question presented is whether an officer’s failure in a search warrant application to inform the magistrate of the defendant’s request for a breath test undermines the validity of the warrant authorizing seizure of a blood sample to test the defendant’s blood alcohol level,” Justice Allison M. Danner said in Thursday’s opinion. “We conclude it does not.”
Danner rejected the view of Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Robert Foley that the magistrate would necessarily have denied a warrant for the search of Joseph Feghhi’s blood had he been apprised of the suspect’s expressed amenability to providing a breath sample. Feghhi explained to California Highway Patrol Officer Fernando Marquez, following the Nov. 7, 2021 crash, that he was “a little bit scared of needles.”
Officer’s Affidavit
Marquez’s affidavit in support of a warrant recited that he had advised Feghhi of the implied consent law—under which every motorist is deemed to have agreed to a chemical test for blood alcohol level—and said that “the person from whom the sample is being sought has refused an officer’s request to submit to, or has failed to complete, a blood test.”
Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Le Jaqueline Duong signed the warrant; blood was drawn by a nurse; Feghhi’s blood alcohol content was determined to be 0.14%, approximately three hours after the accident. Feghhi was charged with murder and lesser offenses based on driving with a level of .08 or more.
In his suppression motion, the defendant alleged that Marquez had snubbed requirements of charged Vehicle Code §23612 “in two separate ways.”
Subd. 9(a)(2)(A) says that “[i]f the person is lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, the person has the choice of whether the test shall be of his or her blood or breath” and subd. and the officer shall advise the person that he or she has that choice.” Subd. (d)(1) provides that a DUI arrestee “may request the arresting officer to have a chemical test made of the arrested person’s blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of that person’s blood, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed.”
Danner’s Response
Danner wrote:
“Feghhi did not articulate how these alleged statutory violations—and the omission of their occurrence from the warrant affidavit—precluded a finding of probable cause.”
She added:
“Feghhi has cited no authority—and we are similarly unaware of any—holding that there is a categorical rule deeming blood tests unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment where the police have secured a warrant supported by probable cause, even if the defendant consents to a chemical test.”
The jurist wrote:
“Apart from a single, conclusory argument that ‘any policy by a law enforcement agency to take a blood test regardless of the suspect’s insistence on a breath test is...unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment,’ Feghhi fails to provide any argument or authority for this categorical rule. We decline to adopt this significant departure from the general rule that a search conducted pursuant to a warrant supported by probable cause issued by a neutral and detached magistrate is ‘reasonable’ under the Amendment’s terms.”
The appellant made no effort, Danner noted, to refute the contention in the warrant that circumstances surrounding the early morning crash rendered “it substantially probable” that a blood test would show a high alcohol level. She pointed out that evidence gathered at the scene showed that Feghhi was the driver of the car that crashed into the vehicle driven by Vanessa Arellano; that another officer spotted “objective signs and symptoms of alcohol intoxication”; and Arellano died.
Supreme Court Review
The procedural history of the case includes a sign that the California Supreme Court might look favorably on granting a petition for review.
Santa Clara’s Office of District Attorney on March 3, 2025, sought a writ of mandate overturning Foley’s decision; the Court of Appeal last Aug. 1 summarily denied the petition; the state high court on Oct. 1 issued an order saying:
“The petition for review is granted. The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, with directions to vacate its order denying mandate and to issue an order directing the respondent superior court to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.”
Two days later, the Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause to the Superior Court and further briefing took place. Oral argument was held May 7.
The case is People v. Superior Court (Feghhi), 2026 S.O.S. 1349.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company