The Right of Refusal in California DUI Cases

If you’re arrested for driving under the influence, and you’re asked to submit to a breath or blood test, remember that you still have a third choice.

You can refuse to submit to such testing and face the consequences. What are those?

  • You may lose your license for one-to-three years depending on your driving history;
  • You’ll have to pay a fine;
  • You’ll serve mandatory jail time if you’re convicted; and
  • Your refusal can be used against you at trial as evidence of your guilt.

You may not like your options, but you’ve still got a right to refuse, and if a police officer wants to deprive you of that right, he or she must get a warrant.

Take this recent case, for example. A woman was stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence. The police officer asked her to blow into a breathalyzer, saying it was optional (which is true). She declined. He then arrested her and asked her to choose between a breath and blood test. He told her that she was required to choose one or the other, but he didn’t explain the consequences of refusing like he was supposed to. That made it seem like she couldn’t refuse (which isn’t true). So she chose the blood test. After she got charged, she moved to suppress the results on the ground that her consent wasn’t free and voluntary because the officer made it seem like she couldn’t refuse. But the trial court denied it.

On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court should have suppressed the test results. Because the officer didn’t have a warrant, the search and seizure was illegal unless it was based on an exception to the warrant requirement (like consent). In this case, however, the woman’s consent wasn’t free and voluntary because the officer didn’t correctly explain the law. He told her that she had to take a test under California’s implied-consent law (which is true). But he didn’t advise her of the consequences for refusing. That made it seem like she couldn’t say no, which meant there was no actual consent.

As the court explained, it’s no different than if the police came to your home and claimed to have a warrant but then argued that you consented to their search by opening your door. That’s not a valid consent because you had no right to resist their authority, anyway. So if it turns out they didn’t actually have a warrant then their whole search would be illegal, and they couldn’t rescue their case by relying on your consent.

The Future of Face-Recognition Technology

Face it: the future is already here. And by default, your face is ever more likely to be found in a law-enforcement database. It’s as easy as getting a driver’s license.

The facts are that face recognition is neither new nor rare, and more than one out of two American adults have already been loaded into a local, state, or federal database.

That’s according to this report by the Center on Privacy and Technology at the Georgetown University Law Center. Read it to learn more about this technology; how it’s being used; and what the future holds. For three shorter stories about it, see here, here, and here.

What did the researchers do? They sent public-records requests to more than one hundred law-enforcement agencies across the country. They interviewed representatives from dozens of those agencies as well as from the technology companies they contract with. They made two site visits to agencies that use advanced face-recognition systems. And they surveyed the state of the law (or lack thereof) in all fifty states.

What are their takeaways? Here are four.

  1. The technology has value, and its use is inevitable. The report doesn’t aim to stop it.
  2. Its use is spreading rapidly and secretly without limits, standards, or public oversight.
  3. The total network of federal, state, and local databases includes over 117 million American adults. That’s more than half the country.
  4. We’re moving toward a world of continuous, real-time face recognition through public surveillance cameras.

What are their recommendations? Here are three.

  1. Congress and state legislatures should pass commonsense laws to regulate face recognition, and police should follow them before they run a search.
    • For example, to search a database of driver’s license or state identification photos, police should have a warrant backed by probable cause.
    • To search a database of mug shots, they should have a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Periodically, they should scrub the database of people who were arrested but not charged and convicted. Michigan, for one, already requires that.
    • They should not use real-time, continuous surveillance except for public emergencies.
    • They should not track people based on politics, religion, or other protected status.
  2. The federal government should develop tests and best practices to improve the technology’s accuracy. For example, in the latest available test of the FBI’s database, the system included the right person on a list of fifty potential matches 86% of the time. That means that one out of seven searches returned a list of fifty innocent look-alikes, and the other six included 49 of them.
  3. All governments should report their use of the technology, audit such use regularly, and respect civil rights and liberties.

Man Gets Indicted By His Pacemaker

Actually, the case was indicted by a grand jury in Ohio, which charged him with arson and insurance fraud.

Apparently, the man called 911 as his home burned in the background. He said he was sleeping when the fire started and that, in a hurry, he packed a bunch of bags, broke a window with his cane, threw the bags out the window, and carried them away. He mentioned that he had a pacemaker.

The police came to suspect him of arson. They say they found gasoline on his shoes, pants, and shirt, and they believe the fire had multiple points of origin from outside the house.

So they got a search warrant for the data from his pacemaker. That gave them a historical record of his heart rate and rhythms before, during, and after the fire.

Reportedly, the data showed that the man was active when he was supposed to be asleep, and a cardiologist has said it was “highly improbable” that he could carry out the strenuous activities he described.

New California Criminal Laws in 2017

Let’s get right to it.

We already covered three of them in prior posts. One was Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana. Another was Proposition 57, which expanded parole eligibility for nonviolent felons and cut back on prosecuting kids as adults. A third was Assembly Bill 1909, which made it a felony for prosecutors to commit Brady violations in bad faith.

Here are five more.

Ransomware is a form of extortion. This is Senate Bill 1137. It amended the Penal Code to punish anyone who introduces ransomware into a computer system or network. It doesn’t matter whether you actually got the ransom or not; it’s a felony punishable by two, three, or four years in the county jail. See Pen. Code § 523.

New business search warrants, less drama. This is Senate Bill 1087. It amended the Evidence Code to make it easier for innocent businesses to comply with search warrants for their records. Now, if a business is not a subject of the underlying investigation, it may be able to produce its records by mail or in some other arms-length way. That’s a lot better than having agents show up to go through your stuff. See Evid. Code § 1560(f).

New motion to vacate a conviction or sentence based on immigration consequences or fresh evidence of innocence. This is Assembly Bill 813. It allows you to ask a court to throw out your case in two situations even though you’ve served out your sentence. The first is if you pleaded guilty because of a legal mistake that undermined your ability to understand the immigration consequences of your plea. The second is if you can present fresh evidence that you were innocent. See Pen. Code § 1473.7.

No more possibility of probation for sex offenses where the victim was unconscious or too intoxicated to consent. This is Assembly Bill 2888. It eliminated probation as a possible sentence for rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration with a foreign object if the victim was unconscious or too intoxicated to consent. It extended a rule that already applied to other, serious sex offenses. See Pen. Code § 1203.065.

No more statute of limitations for felony sex and child-molestation cases. This is Senate Bill 813. It eliminated the statute of limitations for a litany of sex crimes, which now may be prosecuted at any time. Previously, they had to be prosecuted within ten years, or if the alleged victim was under 18, before he or she turned 40. See Pen. Code § 799.

You Won’t Ever Die From Boredom In a Police Raid

That’s the nice thing about it.

But the same can’t be said for being rash or reckless, which is how some police departments are prone to execute their warrants. They may use SWAT teams as a default option for every search or arrest, and they may go in like gangbusters if they do.

When they do, everyone makes more mistakes, and everyone pays a price. They may hit the wrong address and terrorize an innocent family. Or they may hit the right address but kill someone for no good reason.

Here’s an alternative then.

It comes from this essay by a veteran police officer who served sixteen years on a SWAT team. You could say he’s served a lot of warrants.

His very first search was all smash and grab, and it gave him a rush.

But over time, he says, his team gravitated toward a different default: surround the place and call people out. They realized it worked better. Everyone made better decisions.

What are the downsides? Fewer adrenaline rushes. Fewer cool stories for friends and family. More evidence or contraband flushed down a toilet.

The upsides? Lower risks of harm for everyone. More compliance from people on the receiving end. More people on all sides going home to their families at the end of the day.

Police raids still have their place, the author says. Sometimes, it just isn’t safe for cops to stand around and wait. Or they may be hitting multiple locations at the same time. Or they may lose valuable evidence if they don’t go in fast.

Other times, though, they go in hard and fast to save money on overtime pay or to avoid rush hour later that day, and those aren’t good reasons.

So here’s to slower, safer, smarter law enforcement. May boredom reign.

Every Man’s Evidence, Everywhere

They say the public has a right to every man’s evidence, but in a world full of digital evidence, what if it’s stored on servers in other countries?

We wrote about this case two summers ago. Back then, the Microsoft Corporation had just defied a federal search warrant that demanded a subscriber’s emails (and other data) as part of a criminal investigation. Microsoft had already produced all of the data that it stored on servers in the United States, but it refused to access and turn over the emails because they were stored in the Republic of Ireland. Instead, the company moved to quash the warrant, which the magistrate denied, and it was appealing that denial to the district court when we last wrote about it. As it happened, the district judge agreed with the magistrate and held the company in contempt of court for not obeying the warrant.

Well, three weeks ago, Microsoft won big in the court of appeals. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the warrant couldn’t be enforced against the emails because the federal law in question—the Stored Communications Act—did not authorize warrants to reach beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Courts must presume that a law applies only within the United States unless Congress clearly says otherwise, and it hadn’t done so here. One judge wrote separately to explain why it was a closer case and to urge Congress to update the Stored Communications Act for the 21st century.

For now, the decision binds federal courts in New York, Vermont, and Connecticut.

“The Fourth Amendment … Is In Retreat”

That’s how a dissenting opinion ends in a major federal case that was decided on Tuesday. This is how it begins:

“A customer buys a cell phone. She turns it on and puts it in her pocket.”

And with that, according to the majority’s opinion, the customer has consented to create a record of everywhere she goes, a record which the government can then obtain without a search warrant based on probable cause.

Neat trick, huh?

If the government wanted to plant a tracking device on you to follow you everywhere you went, it would need a warrant, but if it wants to let your cell phone do the work, it doesn’t.

Instead, under a federal law from 1986, it can apply for a special order to get your phone’s cell-site location data. These are the logs of cell towers that your phone connects to as you go about your business. They create a fairly precise record of where your phone goes.

The special order must be approved by a judge, but the government doesn’t have to show probable cause to believe you committed a crime; it only needs to show reasonable grounds to believe that your travels are “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.” Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a case where the government couldn’t argue your travels were important once it decided to investigate you for something.

In this case, the government obtained seven months’ worth of records this way.

On appeal, the court not only denied that the Fourth Amendment required a search warrant backed by probable cause, but it denied that the Fourth Amendment applied at all because, supposedly, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in data that you share (or that your phone shares) with a third party such as your cellular service provider.

The court didn’t explain how people are supposed to work, date, or otherwise live in the real world without doing so.

As we’ve noted before, this third-party doctrine makes no sense in the digital age.

Fortunately, many states, including California, are going the other way.

New California Criminal Laws in 2016

Happy New Year! And with it, here are five important criminal laws that went into effect.

Courts must report prosecutors for bad-faith Brady violations. This is Assembly Bill 1328. It amends the Penal Code to provide that a court must report a prosecutor to the State Bar who it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, has deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence in bad faith, and the violation either contributed to your conviction or seriously hindered your ability to defend yourself. The court may also disqualify the prosecutor from the case, and if it does, the defense may move to disqualify the prosecutor’s entire office if there is enough evidence that other employees shared in the bad faith as part of a pattern and practice. See Pen. Code § 1424.5; Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.7(a)(5).

The police must get a new type of warrant to search your electronic data. This is Senate Bill 178. It amends the Penal Code to require a special court order before a government agent or entity can search your data in electronic devices or the cloud, including your emails, text messages, and location data. There is an exception if the government believes in good faith that it needs the data to address a life-threatening emergency, but even then, the government must apply for a warrant within three days. Other rules require it to seal, retain, or destroy your data depending on what it finds and to notify you of what it’s doing. If the government doesn’t follow these rules, you can move to exclude the evidence it obtained as a result. See Pen. Code §§ 1546, 1546.1, 1546.2 & 1546.4.

The public has a right to record the police. This is Senate Bill 411. It amends the Penal Code to confirm that you can’t be stopped for or charged with resisting or obstructing a police officer (or public official) if the officer or official is in a public place or if you have a right to be there. See Pen. Code §§ 69(b) & 148(g).

Grand juries will no longer investigate or indict cases involving police shootings or the use of deadly force. This is Senate Bill 227. It amends the Penal Code to bar grand juries from indicting or inquiring into cases involving a police officer’s use of force that led to the death of someone he or she had detained or arrested. See Pen. Code §§ 917(b) & 919(c).

The state will collect and maintain more comprehensive data on police stops and profiling. This is Assembly Bill 953. It amends the Government Code to require that state and local law-enforcement agencies collect data on every police stop and report their data annually. The data must include the time, date, and location of the stop as well as the reason for it, what happened next, and the end result. The law also expands the definition of police profiling beyond race to include gender, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation. The largest agencies have until April 2019 to issue their first report while the smallest agencies have until April 2023, and those in the middle have until 2020 or 2022 depending on their size. See Gov’t Code § 12525.5; Pen. Code §§ 13012(a)(5) & 13519.4.

DOJ Posts New Policy on Stingrays

Well, what do you know.

Two weeks ago, we lamented the fact that law enforcement was using these electronic devices—commonly referred to as Stingrays, IMSI-catchers, or cell-site simulators—without search warrants and, often, in secret.

Then last Thursday, the U.S. Justice Department announced that, from now on, each of its agencies must obtain search warrants to use such devices, and the warrants must be supported by probable cause.

Furthermore, when agents do apply for a warrant, they must fairly disclose the nature of the technology as well as what they plan to do with it and how they plan to purge any data they pick up from non-target phones. If they use the device to locate a known phone, for example, they must delete that data once the phone is located and at least once per day. If they use the device to identify an unknown phone, they must delete that data once the phone is identified and at least every thirty days. And they must delete all prior operational data before each subsequent use.

Finally, the policy reaffirms that, even with a search warrant, agents may not use these devices to intercept the content of communications, like texts and emails, or other data like address books or contact lists. (That changes, of course, if they obtain a wiretap order.)

The policy applies to all instances in which the Department’s agencies—including the FBI, DEA, and ATF—use these devices to further their own criminal investigations, those of other federal agencies, or those of state and local agencies. It requires training and supervision before agents can use them, and it requires agencies to keep track of their use.

But the policy doesn’t apply to federal agencies outside the Justice Department or to state and local law enforcement, where a lot of the action is. If you’re wondering about your state, here’s a nifty map that offers the ACLU’s best guess on which local agencies are using them.

Nor does the policy apply to terrorism or national-security investigations.

Finally, the policy doesn’t apply in emergencies or in certain non-emergency circumstances that make it impractical to obtain a warrant, though other requirements still apply even then. See 18 U.S.C. § 3121 et seq. (codifying the federal pen register statutes).

Here’s a copy of the policy itself.

Cyber Search Warrants Are Going to the Dogs

It’s true, and reportedly, even the recent search of Jared Fogle’s home involved a Labrador who found a thumb drive of potential evidence.

The dog is one of a handful or two nationwide that’s trained to sniff out electronics and their component parts based on a chemical that’s common to all of them. Law enforcement won’t identify the chemical, but after a few months of training, the dogs learn to detect its odor. They can then be used to search for anything from laptops, tablets, and hard drives to thumb drives, circuit boards, and tiny memory cards.

It’s a relatively new advent but one that’s catching on quickly.

Still, we should remain wary of the potential for abuse. A lot depends on how well these dogs are trained and how scrupulously they are used by their handlers, among other things.

Ratings and Reviews

The National Trial Lawyers
Mani Dabiri American Bar Foundation Emblem