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

Doesn't really effect me...

I got my one and only DUI over 3 years ago and wish I could thank the Cop that gave it to me. I kinda wish Cops could be allowed to stop people leaving bars for only that reason, would have saved me alot of heart ache, money and stupidity if I would have been caught alot earlier in my Drinking career.
 
Stop people leaving bars on what grounds? Suspicion of leaving a bar?

Better start pulling over folks leaving gun shops too, never know what they might do. :rolleyes:

Or TGIfridays, it's a restaurant but they might have ordered a beer with dinner.

Or liquor stores.

Absent something to trigger a real sense that the driver is actually impaired, mere presence in a place that serves liquor should never constitute a reason to interfere with the citizenry.

The perceived evil and risk of DUI should not be used (as it is being used) as a justification for blanket abrogation of the rights of people.
 
I'd argue that the ruling in question, as applied to narrowly defined DUI arrests, hardly constitutes justification for a "blanket abrogation" of the peoples' rights. It applies to one specific area of the law.
The ruling simply adds to case law supporting a particular type of investigation & arrest under exigent circumstances in an area that's already been in place for decades in many areas.
This is, honestly, no major violation of anybody's rights, no huge step toward total governmental domination, no impending threat to the Constitution, no harbinger of the end of the world as we know it, and it's just not a big deal.
It does not give police the right to bust your door anytime they feel like it, it does not reduce the need for a warrant in other areas that's also been in place for many years, it does not mean you go to jail just because your neighbor tells the cops you broke a law, and nothing's really any different this week than it was a week ago.
Life goes on. :)
Denis
 
DPris,

I actually meant the "is being used" in general, not in this specific instance.

As long as enough evidence is developed that the guy was actually driving AND was actually impaired per the law's arbitrary and unscientific BAC rating, put him away based on the law as written.

Although I'd prefer it if it could be shown he actually committed an infraction of some kind other than merely being "potentially more dangerous" than all the other drivers on the road, including those who are alcohol free but are instead sleepy, cell phone using, distracted by kids, putting on makeup or any of the hundred other things people do while driving which create a statistically equal or greater chance of harming others.
 
Rules, boundaries, and limits have to be set to keep a society from degenerating back into chaos, and there will always be those who disagree with where those boundaries are set. Having dealt with the results of DUI drivers for a long time, I have zero problem with the "arbitrary and unscientific BAC" set by law. I've seen the death, physical handicaps, and property damage caused by such people right in front of my face. I still have a section of windshield I had a fireman cut out for me as a reminder to show people from an accident I handled one night. After a few beers, Mommy drove straight into a telephone pole with her 14 year old daughter in the front seat, and without making sure she had a seatbelt on. The daughter's head went through the windshield far enough to split the glass horizontally, and the bottom half in a freakishly straight edge went right into her mouth. The section of glass I have shows a perfect half-circle bite mark from where her teeth chomped down as her body stopped her from going all the way through the windshield. It cut her mouth open from side to side and required extensive facial reconstruction. I've been to classes required for Intoxilizer recertifications where test volunteers drank progressive amounts of alcohol and I've noted the direct and measurable deterioration of judgement and motor skills as they approached the so-called "legal limit" of intoxication. It's not theory. It's not arbitrary. It's not unscientific. It's real, and an alcohol impaired driver is not merely "potentially" more dangerous than other drivers on the road, he or she is absolutely more dangerous than other types of drivers, as a group.
I won't argue the merits of DUI law in itself, you're entitled to your own opinion, and my main purpose in addressing this thread was to comment on the California ruling regarding the warrantless arrest. :)
Denis
 
Thank you for a reasoned and clear response.

And for your service to your own and by extension, all of our communities.
 
I understand the premise for entering a home and making an arrest without a warrant in some situations. I do not understand the premise behind arresting someone for Driving Under the Influence when:
1) This person is walking around inside a building.
2) The police have no empirical evidence that this person has done anything except walk around in a building drunk.
3) The only factor even approaching the indication of a crime is one instance of civilian hearsay.

This is just based on what I've seen so far.
 
Mad,
You may not be familiar with how probabable cause, subsequent investigation, and resulting prosecution goes.
If:
There's a statement made to police that a crime has been committed;
There's a statement made that a person witnessed the crime;
There's an investigation that follows which reveals corroborating evidence;
There's enough evidence to establish probable cause that the crime was committed and the suspect committed it;
Then there is sufficient grounds for an arrest.
Again- you are not seeing the entire set of circumstances here. It was not a simple matter of "Hey cops! My neighbor just drove drunk, go get him!" and the police walking over & arresting the guy the minute they saw him based solely on the above statement.
I don't know the facts either, but from experience I'd feel safe in assuming it was something like the following:
"Officer, I believe my neighbor was just driving drunk."
"And why do you say that?"
"Well, when I was out in the front yard watering my lawn, I saw him driving down the street coming home next door, and he was wandering all over the road. He drove over the sidewalk there getting into his driveway. He parked partly on the sidewalk in that car right there where it still is. I saw him throw what looked like a whiskey bottle out onto the lawn through the car window, and I saw him get out and go into his house. He was walking very unsteadily and tripped on the front stairs before he got the door open."
"How long ago was this?"
"About 20 minutes."
"Have you seen him come out, or anybody else go in or out?"
"No."
"And you're sure it was the man who owns that car?"
"Yes, he's lived here for five years and he drives it all the time."
"What's his name?"
"Harold Herkimer."
"Can you describe him?"
"He's caucasian, about 56, maybe 5'9", kind of heavy, has grey hair."
"What was he wearing?"
"A white shortsleeved shirt, and dark blue pants."
"Thank you, ma'am."
The officers walk next door to where the car is still parked partially on the sidewalk. The muffler is still hot. They find an empty vodka bottle ten feet from the car on the front lawn. They run the plate, the car is registered to Harold Herkimer at that address. They knock on the door, which they have a perfect right to do, and ask the woman who answers if Mr. Herkimer is home and if they can speak to him. As they're doing this, a white male in his 50s, about 6 feet tall, 240 pounds, with grey hair, and wearing a white shortsleeved shirt with dark blue pants walks in view. His gait is unsteady, his speech is slurred, his eyes have difficulty focusing. Officers ask him if he is Harold Herkimer, he says he is.
1. Complainant suspects a crime & reports it to police.
2. Police obtain detailed statement from eyewitness placing an identified
suspect behind the wheel, with name & description.
3. Suspect car is parked irregularly, muffler still hot (indicating the time
element is very recent), registered to the named suspect at the
suspect's address pointed out by complainant.
4. Vodka bottle confirms complainant's statement about seeing
what appeared to be a whiskey bottle tossed out by suspect. Bottle
is empty, indicating the probability that the contents were imbibed (since
people generally don't dump a bottle of booze out).
5. A male meeting the suspect description walks into plain view as officers
are still standing outside the front door. He exhibits signs consistent with
alcohol consumption in the officers' experience and training (and their
opinions based on those are recognized by the courts).
6. Based on the above, the officers determine that there is probable cause to
believe a crime (DUI) was indeed committed.
7. There is sufficient evidence independent of the complainant's initial
statement to believe the suspect is the person who committed the
crime.
8. There is no time to try for an arrest warrant, since the process typically
takes at least several hours and the suspect's blood alcohol level will
be reduced by the liver in the meantime.
9. Under the exigent circumstances rule, supported by the plain view doctrine
of seeing the suspect from a place the officers were legally entitled to be,
an arrest is made.
I'm not saying these are the circumstances, just illustrating the process. Believe me, it wasn't as simple & threadbare as you're seeing in the news article. A successful prosecution can start with a fairly vague statement, such as "Hey cop, I think them people's dealin' dope in that house." That doesn't get a busted door solely on the strength of the one statement. There has to be a lot more.
Like the law or not, like the cops or not, there are rules of the game, and I never saw much point in making an arrest I knew I couldn't win in court right up front. I had better things to do with my time. :)


Carebear,
You're very welcome.

Denis
 
So if I get pulled over, jump out of my car, open and chug a brew, I'm home free?:confused:

I'll never move back to Cali. I'm getting spoiled here in El Paso.
 
I understand what you're getting at, Denis. I also understand that there are lots of fine, upstanding officers of the law, like yourself, that I'd be proud to know. I know there are plenty of assclowns on the force as well. It's largely unavoidable, as it is in most professions. As such, I cannot eliminate either calibre of officer from this situation. The scenario you've outlined seems very plausible, but it all comes down to circumstantial evidence and hearsay. There is a single eyewitness account of littering, maybe reckless driving, and maybe an open container. This civilian can't "witness" a DUI because the civilian has no way of gatehring the empirical evidence that constitutes a DUI and seperates it from any other traffic offense.
 
Mad,
Any good criminal trial attorney will tell you the first thing to attack in defending a client in court is the probable cause, the reason and the basis from which all that follows derives.
In the situation I described above, believe it or not, there's loads of PC, and with a BAC level determined via a court recognized process (Intoxilizer or some other credible instrument in most cases), it would be a piece of cake to get a conviction here in my state. Each one of these factors, from the complainant's original statement on through to the suspect's appearance & demeanor, can be attacked individually, but if the complainant holds up on the witness stand as a foundation for the subsequent investigation, everything else adds up to what's referred to as a preponderance of evidence and I'd fully expect a conviction.
Put another way- if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, has a bill instead of a beak, has "paddle-type" feet instead of four separate clawed toes, swims instead of sinking on water, and looks like a duck, most judges & juries will rule that it is indeed a duck.
Erratic driving in itself does not always guarrantee a DUI driver. Neither does irregular parking, or the mere presence of an empty vodka bottle, or a driver walking unsteadily or tripping on his front steps, or a person's physical demeanor. But, once you put everything together, along with a credible witness who can place the suspect behind the wheel of the car & positively identify him, it's a solid case for an arrest. The BAC adds icing to the cake. Even the BAC is not absolutely required, I've had convictions without it in cases where I had a good enough case to convince judges & juries.
The fact that the California Supreme Court ruled on only one issue- warrantless arrest in the home- tells you a couple things right there. One is that both the original trial court felt there was sufficient grounds for a prosecution, and the other is that so did the Supreme Court. The issue was not the arrest itself, but how the arrest was made. You'll notice no mention was made of insufficient probable cause to make the arrest or a flawed foundation for a prosecution, the sole issue was related to the way the arrest was conducted. Believe me, if there'd been a workable flaw in the foundation and investigation prior to the arrest, the defense attorney would have been all over it, that goes back to the theory that if you can crack the foundation, the entire house falls. Since none of the usual was mentioned- incompetent witness/complainant, erroneous identification of the suspect, medical condition of the suspect, improper search of the property (bottle in front yard), officers had no right to be on the front porch & see the suspect, etc., I'd assume the original trial court had no problem with anything but the actual ingress into the house to make the arrest without a warrant.
Circumstantial evidence results in convictions every day. Hearsay in the form of a witness' observations is perfectly admissable in certain contexts, and this is one of them. One of the old classic opening statements of a British cop in court was "Acting on information received, I did this or that." The source of the information does not have to the officer himself, the act does not have to be completed in the presence of the officer himself, nor does he have to see it himself. If you required only a cop's personal observations & threw out every other witness, the legal system would die instantly.
Again, I think there's too much emphasis being placed here on only the complainant's original statement. There HAD to be much more than that, and the rest of what followed was not at issue, beyond the warrantless arrest.
Take a meth lab. Neighbor calls the cops, says there's always a strong odor of cat piss coming from next door & she's heard that's a sign of a meth lab.
Cops come out, sure enough, strong odor of cat piss.
The address is searched on the department's records database, four previous arrests at that house, two domestic disturbances, one loud party. The records come up with five names involved. Three have prior meth arrest histories elsewhere. A surveillance is set up, an abnormal traffic pattern of people in & out is documented. License plates are run, several cars visiting come back to owners with drug histories. A check with the utilities companies shows accounts in the name of a previous meth lab operator. A snitch is worked into the house & makes a buy. Next day a warrant is obtained, the door's booted, and off we go.
During the subsequent prosecution, it is not necessary that the original neighbor/complainant be certified as an expert able to determine the difference between genuine cat piss and the airborne byproducts of a meth lab. A suspicion communicated to the police resulted in an investigation that led to an arrest. Happens every day.
The sole issue here was the warrantless arrest, and that also happens every day, UNDER CERTAIN NARROWLY DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES.
Denis
 
I understand what you mean by preponderance of evidence, but I don't really feel that your meth lab anaolgy is applicable. It involves a great deal of circumstantial evidence, along with the suspects being caught red handed actually engaging in criminal activity.
 
Mad,
I was just trying to illustrate that a simple witness statement can start a legitimate investigation resulting in an arrest that will stand up in court.
The suspect does not have to be caught red-handed to be either guilty of, or arrested for, the crime. Those are the easy ones, but too many violators would get off scott free if it was a requirement for prosecution. The law recognizes this. The two types of cases are not totally analogous, but the same point of origin (the original witness that seems to be a problem for some here) is.
The law requires certain procedures based on certain types of crimes. If the neighbor said she'd happened to look in the window next door & see the husband stab his wife, she doesn't need to be an expert in forensics to determine whether the knife was real, whether the stab wounds were fatal, whether the wife actually died or not, to call police. An investigation must follow and other factors developed before an arrest can be made, and if officers go to the door to check on the welfare of the wife & a man answers covered with blood, they do not need a warrant to pursue the matter. If they leave at that point to obtain one, the wife might still be alive & savable, or the husband could dispose of evidence in the meanwhile. Conversely, if the neighbor calls police & says she thinks the guy next door killed his wife last week because she saw him carrying out three heavy garbage bags to his car in the middle of the night & the wife hasn't been seen since, the police can knock on the door & ask to see her, but can't push further without a warrant based solely on the complainant's statement.
Different types of crimes require different approaches & standards in searches, warrants, and arrests.
Many arrests and convictions are obtained through circumstantial evidence, it's a regular part of the legal process. :)
Denis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top