Background
Dariush Feghhi was charged with second-degree murder after allegedly driving 129 miles per hour and killing another motorist. Officers obtained a search warrant to draw his blood for alcohol testing. The warrant affidavit established probable cause based on Feghhi’s erratic driving, the collision, and signs of intoxication — but it did not mention that Feghhi had requested a breath test instead of a blood draw.
The trial court suppressed the blood-alcohol evidence, reasoning that the warrant affidavit was misleading under Franks v. Delaware because it omitted the breath-test request, and that the implied consent statute (Vehicle Code § 23612) required officers to honor Feghhi’s choice of test. The People sought a writ of mandate.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District Court of Appeal granted the writ and ordered the trial court to vacate its suppression order. The court held that the omission of Feghhi’s breath-test request from the warrant affidavit did not render it misleading under Franks, because a suspect’s test preference is irrelevant to the probable cause determination for a blood-draw warrant.
The court further held that California’s implied consent statute operates independently of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. When officers obtain a valid warrant for a blood draw, the implied consent law’s test-choice provisions do not apply — the warrant itself provides the constitutional authority for the search. The court distinguished Birchfield v. North Dakota and Missouri v. McNeely, both of which addressed warrantless blood draws, not warrant-authorized ones.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s request for a breath test instead of a blood draw is irrelevant to the probable cause analysis for a blood-draw search warrant — its omission from a warrant affidavit does not violate Franks.
- California’s implied consent statute (Veh. Code § 23612) and its test-choice provisions do not limit law enforcement’s authority to execute a judicially authorized blood-draw warrant.
- Birchfield and McNeely apply only to warrantless blood draws; they do not constrain warrant-supported draws.
- The ruling preserves critical blood-alcohol evidence in a DUI murder prosecution involving extreme speed (129 mph).
Why It Matters
DUI prosecutions frequently involve blood draws, and defense challenges to blood-draw warrants are common. This opinion provides clear guidance: once officers obtain a valid warrant, the implied consent statute’s test-choice provisions are beside the point. Prosecutors need not include a defendant’s test preference in the warrant affidavit, and suppression based on the implied consent statute alone is improper when a warrant was obtained.
For defense attorneys, the opinion narrows the grounds for suppressing warrant-authorized blood evidence — challenges must focus on the sufficiency of probable cause itself, not on implied consent procedures. The ruling is especially significant in vehicular murder cases, where blood-alcohol evidence is often the linchpin of the prosecution.