Advertisement

Forced Tests in Drunk-Driving Cases Curbed : Alcohol: The U. S. Supreme Court lets stand a decision that prohibits police from using physical force to draw blood from suspects. The action makes law murky, some lawyers say.

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Police may not use physical force to draw blood from a drunk-driving suspect under a ruling in a Newport Beach case that the U. S. Supreme Court let stand Monday.

Under California law, police can insist that apparently intoxicated motorists submit to a test--whether of their breath, urine or blood--as a condition of maintaining their driving licenses.

But the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that Newport Beach police went too far when they handcuffed a drunk-driving suspect to a hospital chair and allegedly held him by the shoulders as a nurse drew blood from his arm.

The suspect, Timothy Hammer, had been arrested at 4 a.m. on June 23, 1985, after allegedly driving erratically. He initially refused to take a breath test. Officers then took him to Hoag Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach to have a blood sample taken.

Advertisement

Based on the results, Hammer pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol but filed a damage suit against the city and its police officers for violating his constitutional rights. The 4th Amendment forbids “unreasonable searches” and in May the federal appeals court upheld a $2,500 award against the city. By a 6-5 margin, the appeals court said that the force used to restrain Hammer was “unreasonable.”

Despite an appeal by Newport Beach, joined by attorneys for California and 10 other states, the Supreme Court without comment or dissent let stand the appeals court ruling and the damage verdict in the case.

State attorneys said that the decision could “seriously impede” the enforcement of the laws against drunk driving and could “encourage physical resistance and game-playing by drunk-driving suspects.”

Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, speaking for the five dissenters on the appeals court, said “the effect of the decision is that blood cannot be extracted from a drunk who refuses to have it done . . . particularly so if the drunk is willing to become the least bit physical about it.”

Advertisement

Los Angeles attorney Stephen Yagman, who represented Hammer, agreed, adding: “I think police in California are not going to use force at all any more to compel a drunk-driving suspect to submit to a blood test.”

In 1990, police in California made 353,886 arrests for misdemeanor drunk driving and 12,799 arrests for felony drunk driving, usually because the intoxicated motorist caused an accident that injured another person.

Attorneys for Newport Beach and the state of California said the high court’s action leaves the law muddled on what police officers can do when confronted with a recalcitrant drunk driver.

“This makes the law confused and murky. That’s why we wanted the court to hear this case,” said Newport Beach City Atty. Robert Burnham.

Advertisement

In 1966, the Supreme Court said police could use limited force to restrain a drunk-driving suspect and to require that he submit to a blood test.

But more recently, the justices have said that such a use of force must be “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts of a case.

Applying that somewhat hazy standard, the appeals court said that Newport Beach police went too far when they forcibly took blood from Hammer’s arm even after he belatedly announced that he would agree to a breath test.

“I still think the police can use reasonable force to require the suspect to undergo a chemical test, so long as the officer has considered the alternative tests,” Burnham said. “But I agree the issue is clouded now.”

Advertisement

Yagman suggested that police officers who use force to obtain blood samples may now face personal liability.

“This decision makes clear that police who use physical force to compel a blood test are breaking the law. They are on notice now that they can be held personally liable,” Yagman said.

Although the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal does not set a national precedent, the U. S. 9th Circuit Court decision stands as the law in the Western states, from Arizona to Alaska.

Times staff writer Dan Weikel in Orange County contributed to this story.

Advertisement


Advertisement
Advertisement