Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Esayian

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 23, 2003No. D041376Published

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

  1. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. United States v. MatlockSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API