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.