New York Law Review

Tag: blood sample

  • People v. Moselle, 57 N.Y.2d 97 (1982): Warrantless Blood Draws and Admissibility in Court

    People v. Moselle, 57 N.Y.2d 97 (1982)

    Blood samples taken from a defendant without consent or a court order are inadmissible in prosecutions for driving under the influence or under the Penal Law, except when taken in compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194.

    Summary

    This case consolidates three appeals concerning the admissibility of blood samples taken without consent from individuals involved in car accidents. The New York Court of Appeals held that, absent consent or a valid court order, blood samples are inadmissible in DUI and Penal Law prosecutions unless obtained in compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194. This decision rests on the preemption of blood sample authorization by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 for DUI cases and CPL 240.40 for other criminal prosecutions. The court emphasized the need for either explicit statutory authorization or a court order before such samples can be taken and used as evidence.

    Facts

    In People v. Moselle, the defendant was involved in an accident, and officers detected a strong odor of alcohol. A blood sample was taken without his consent or arrest. The blood alcohol content (BAC) was .17%. In People v. Daniel, the defendant crashed his van, and officers found alcohol in the vehicle. The defendant was semiconscious, and a blood sample was taken without consent. His BAC was .22%. In People v. Wolter, the defendant collided head-on with another vehicle, resulting in a fatality. He was arrested for driving while intoxicated but refused a blood test. Despite his refusal, a sample was taken, revealing a BAC of .23%.

    Procedural History

    In Moselle, the defendant was convicted of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2), but the Erie County Court reversed the conviction. In Daniel, the Erie County Court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the blood test results, which the Appellate Division affirmed. In Wolter, the Livingston County Court ruled that the blood test could be used in the manslaughter trial but not the DUI charge. The Appellate Division reversed Wolter’s conviction. The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal in all three cases.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether blood samples taken without consent or a court order are admissible in prosecutions for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 when the procedural requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 are not observed.
    2. Whether blood samples taken without consent or a court order are admissible in prosecutions under the Penal Law.

    Holding

    1. No, because absent a manifestation of the defendant’s consent thereto, blood samples taken without a court order other than in conformity with the provisions of subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law are inadmissible in prosecutions for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol under section 1192 of that law.
    2. No, because blood samples taken without a defendant’s consent are inadmissible in prosecutions under the Penal Law unless taken pursuant to an authorizing court order.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court based its decision on two legislative enactments: Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 and CPL 240.40. Section 1194 authorizes chemical blood tests for DUI prosecutions only under specific conditions (arrest or breath test indication of alcohol) and explicitly states that “if the person refuses to submit to such chemical test, the test shall not be given.” CPL 240.40 outlines discovery procedures, including obtaining non-testimonial evidence like blood samples, but requires a court order. The court found that the Legislature, by enacting these provisions, preempted the field of blood sample authorization. The court stated, “No room is then left for the taking of samples of blood otherwise than pursuant to a court order issued under CPL 240.40 or a court order otherwise authorized by law (or in conformity with § 1194). The negative inference is that the taking of blood in any other manner is foreclosed.” Therefore, because the blood samples in these cases were taken without either consent or a valid court order, they were deemed inadmissible. The court emphasized that “exigent circumstances” might excuse the failure to obtain a court order, but do not provide a source of authority to conduct discovery.

  • In the Matter of an Investigation into the Death of Abe A., 53 N.Y.2d 291 (1981): Compelling a Suspect to Provide a Blood Sample

    In the Matter of an Investigation into the Death of Abe A., 53 N.Y.2d 291 (1981)

    A court order to obtain a blood sample from a suspect is permissible if the prosecution establishes probable cause, a clear indication that relevant evidence will be found, and the method is safe and reliable, balancing the crime’s seriousness against the suspect’s right to bodily integrity.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a suspect in a homicide investigation can be compelled to provide a blood sample. The New York Court of Appeals held that a court order to obtain a blood sample from a suspect may be issued if the People establish probable cause that the suspect committed the crime, a clear indication that relevant evidence will be found, and that the method used is safe and reliable. The court must balance the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence, and the unavailability of less intrusive means against the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion. The court found the standard was met in this case, reversing the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Facts

    Abe A. was found murdered in his apartment with signs of a violent struggle. Jon L., Abe’s business partner, discovered the body. Jon L. had abrasions on his face and bruises on his hands, including tooth marks, which he claimed were from an unreported mugging. Blood analysis in Abe’s apartment revealed two blood types: Abe’s and a rare type found in less than 1% of the population. Jon L. refused to voluntarily submit to a blood test. The District Attorney sought a court order to compel Jon L. to provide a blood sample.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the District Attorney’s motion for an order compelling Jon L. to provide a blood sample, finding probable cause and a minimal intrusion. Jon L. refused to comply, and the People moved to punish him for contempt. The court found him guilty of criminal contempt but stayed the sentence pending appeal. The Appellate Division reversed the contempt order and dismissed the order directing the blood draw as academic, arguing that Jon L. had not been formally charged with a crime. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a suspect in a homicide investigation can be compelled, pursuant to a court order, to supply a blood sample for scientific analysis before being formally charged with a crime.

    Holding

    Yes, because a court order to obtain a blood sample from a suspect may be issued provided the People establish probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crime, a “clear indication” that relevant material evidence will be found, and the method used to secure it is safe and reliable. The issuing court must also weigh the seriousness of the crime, the importance of the evidence, and the unavailability of less intrusive means against concern for the suspect’s constitutional right to be free from bodily intrusion.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that while New York law does not explicitly authorize courts to compel suspects to provide nontestimonial evidence, the court’s power to issue a search warrant implicitly grants this authority. CPL 690.05 (subd 2) empowers a criminal court to order a search of a designated person to seize evidence related to an offense. The court emphasized that Fourth Amendment safeguards are implicated at two levels: the seizure of the person and the subsequent search for evidence. Seizure requires probable cause; detention of an individual to obtain physical evidence also necessitates probable cause. The court rejected the Appellate Division’s requirement of a formal charge, stating, “There is no constitutional right to be arrested.”

    Regarding the bodily intrusion itself, the court established a multifaceted inquiry. A “clear indication” that the intrusion will supply substantial probative evidence is essential. The method must be safe, reliable, and impose minimal discomfort, performed by qualified medical personnel. Finally, the court must consider the worth of the evidence, the nature of alternative means, and minimize the intrusion. The court found probable cause that Jon L. committed the crime, noting the suspicious injuries and inconsistencies in his alibi. His blood type constituted material probative evidence, and no alternative means were available. The court noted, “That the incidence of the presumed killer’s blood type in the general population is less than one to a hundred is well documented by medical statistics.”

    The court emphasized the balancing act between individual rights and societal interests, concluding that the stringent standards were met in this case.