Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Nzolameso

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

September 17, 2019

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JULIO NZOLAMESO, Defendant and Appellant.

          APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. SA096190 Mark A. Young, Judge. Affirmed.

          Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

          Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Jonathan M. Krauss, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

          STRATTON, J.

         INTRODUCTION

         Police arrested appellant Julio Nzolameso for alleged drunk driving after he drove his car into a crowd of people and seriously injured four pedestrians. The arresting officers admonished Nzolameso that he was required to submit to either blood, urine, or breath testing and that refusal to submit to any testing at all would result in civil and criminal penalties. Nzolameso chose the blood test, which revealed a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

         Nzolameso moved to suppress the results of the blood test on the grounds that the blood testing was a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He also argued that his consent to the blood test was invalid because it was given under threat of criminal prosecution. The court denied the motion.

         On appeal, Nzolameso relies on Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) 579 U.S. ___, [136 S.Ct. 2160] (Birchfield) in support of his argument that his consent was illegal per se because it was given under threat of criminal prosecution. Because we disagree with Nzolameso's broad interpretation of Birchfield and agree Nzolameso's consent was freely and voluntarily given, we affirm.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On a night in June 2017, Nzolameso drove his car into a crowd of pedestrians who were socializing in the parking lot of a club. After hitting several pedestrians, Nzolameso exited the parking lot, made a right-hand turn into heavy traffic, and crashed into a parked car. Nzolameso was immediately detained by Los Angeles Police Department Officers Ernest Fields and Samuel Kim, who transported Nzolameso to a hospital to ensure he was not injured. At the hospital, Officer Fields conducted field sobriety tests, which Nzolameso failed.

         Officer Fields then placed Nzolameso under arrest and advised him of California's implied consent law as follows:

         “You must submit to a blood test, urine test, breath test, or urine and breath test, per California Vehicle Code 23612. Failure to submit to or failure to complete required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if convicted of 23152 or 23153, and the suspension of your privilege to operate a motor vehicle for one year.

         “[¶]... [¶]

         “Breath test violation 23614 C.V.C. If you choose the breath test, the breath testing equipment does not retain any sample of the breath and no breath sample will be available after the first test, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.