California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Serino, G053273 (Cal. App. 2017):
The blood draw here occurred in 2011, well before McNeely was published. At the time, Warren was operating within the law by drawing defendant's blood without a warrant. Under these circumstances, exclusion of the evidence would be inappropriate. "Exclusion is 'not a personal constitutional right,' nor is it designed to 'redress the injury' occasioned by an unconstitutional search. [Citations.] The rule's sole purpose, we have repeatedly held, is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations." (Davis v. U.S. (2011) 564 U.S. 229, 236-237.) "Exclusion exacts a heavy toll on both the judicial system and society at large." (Id. at p. 237.) "[W]hen the police act with an objectively 'reasonable good-faith belief' that their conduct is lawful, [citation], or when their conduct involves only simple, 'isolated' negligence, [citation], the '"deterrence rationale loses much of its
Page 7
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.