People v. Esayian
California Court of Appeal
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
McINTYRE, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the majority opinion to the extent it holds that the record properly before us does not demonstrate that the County of San Diego (County) has a deliberate, systematic and pervasive policy of having blood draws conducted in violation of statutory requirements. I dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the blood draw in this case does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Because I find that the prosecution did not meet its burden to show that the blood draw was constitutionally reasonable in this case, I do not reach the issue of…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. MatlockSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.