California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Superior Court (Feghhi) is that an officer's failure to inform a magistrate in a search warrant application that a DUI defendant requested a breath test does not undermine the validity of the warrant authorizing seizure of a blood sample, under circumstances where the warrant was otherwise supported by probable cause based on objective signs of intoxication and the defendant's involvement in a fatal DUI crash.

Appeal from order granting motion to traverse and quash search warrant and suppress evidence in Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

Petitioner was The People — the prosecuting agency seeking to obtain blood evidence in a fatal DUI murder case.

Real Party in Interest was Joseph Feghhi — the defendant who was driving 129 mph when he rear-ended and killed Vanessa Arellano, and who later requested a breath test after initially refusing chemical testing.

The suit sounded in criminal prosecution for murder and vehicular manslaughter arising from a fatal DUI crash.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Feghhi drove 129 mph on Highway 101 and rear-ended Vanessa Arellano's vehicle, killing her. Officers observed objective signs of alcohol impairment including odor of alcohol, red watery eyes, and unsteady gait. Feghhi initially refused chemical testing when arrested, but later told Officer Marquez he wanted to take a breath test because he was afraid of needles. Officer Marquez obtained a search warrant for blood draw without disclosing to the magistrate that Feghhi had requested a breath test. The blood sample taken three hours after the crash revealed a BAC of 0.14 percent.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted Feghhi's motion to traverse and quash the search warrant and suppress evidence, ruling that the magistrate would not have issued the warrant if the affidavit had disclosed Feghhi's consent to a breath test because there would be no need for an invasive blood test.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether an officer's omission from a search warrant affidavit of the defendant's request for a breath test undermines the validity of the warrant for a blood draw when the warrant was otherwise supported by probable cause.

The Appellate Court held that even assuming deliberate omission of defendant's consent to a breath test from the warrant affidavit, the defendant failed to demonstrate that correcting the alleged omission would have changed the probable cause analysis or rendered issuance of the warrant unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, where the affidavit contained sufficient facts showing probable cause including objective signs of intoxication and involvement in a fatal crash.

The case is inapplicable when the warrant lacks probable cause based on the underlying facts of intoxication and criminal conduct, or when the circumstances involve such extreme physical intrusion that the search becomes categorically unreasonable despite probable cause.

The case leaves open whether use of a warrant for blood draw rather than a breath test may ever be unreasonable under different factual circumstances, and the broader question of when consent to alternative testing methods might affect Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis in cases not involving routine blood draws clearly supported by probable cause.