Traffic/DUI

Defendant was charged with DUI, possession of drug paraphernalia, and following too closely. Court erred in granting Defendant's motion to suppress. Uncontested testimony that Defendant followed officer's squad car at an interval of a car-length or less for the distance of a football field while travelling 30-35 mph. Officer Defendant’s vehicle based on his observation and opinion that defendant was following him at an unsafe distance, and officer's observation justified an investigatory traffic stop. (McLAREN and HUDSON, concurring.)

Plaintiff challenged a traffic ticket, on the ground that the ticket was the result of automated speed enforcement (ASE) camera operating near high school, and that law governing ASE cameras prohibited City from operating ASE camera near a school on that day (Thursday, June 26, 2014), which was a day in extended school year when special needs children were attending their regularly scheduled classes. The schooling of special need children qualifies as a school day for purposes of ASE law. Legislative history shows that legislators' primary purpose was to protect children, and that they intended to limit protection to days when children were in school and to exclude Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a vagueness challenge, as the ASE law was the same regardless of whether the ASE cameras were operating.  Court properly granted City's motion to dismiss and properly denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.(REYES and PALMER, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating compounds (DUI).  Court granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence that was allegedly the product of an illegal arrest.  Court then allowed results of urine test that hospital personnel administered to Defendant shortly after his arrest; court ultimately suppressed the test results. Although Defendant was arrested illegally, the test results were not tainted by the arrest, as they were the product of actions by hospital employees not acting at instigation or prompting of the police. Fourth amendment does not apply to a search or seizure effected by a private individual not acting as agent of government or with participation or knowledge of any governmental official. Thus, court erred in suppressing results of urine test done by hospital personnel.(HUTCHINSON and ZENOFF, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of driving while license revoked, operating an uninsured motor vehicle, no valid registration, and disobeying a traffic control device. Defendant had been riding a bicycle powered with a 3/4 hp motor; Defendant testified that one must pedal the bicycle up to 8-10 mph before activating the motor, and when pedaling in conjunction with the motor, it can travel 25-30 mph. State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the motorized bicycle was a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Code; thus, first 3 convictions are reversed. Offense of disobeying a traffic control device applied to Defendant even if he was not operating a "motor vehicle".  Thus, that conviction is affirmed.(McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Defendant, then age 19, was convicted of aggravated DUI and sentenced to 12 years. Three back-seat passengers died in crash. Admissions of his front-seat passenger's out-of-court statement (in the hospital, to the police) that he heard a back seat passenger yell to the driver that he shouldn't be doing that, in the moments before the crash, did not meet requirements for admissibility as substantive evidence, and was improperly admitted for purposes of impeachment.  State's case was not affirmatively damaged by passenger's professed lack of memory as to that statement. Error was harmless, as Defendant admitted to police that he was "huffing" from a can of compressed air in the vehicle while driving. (LYTTON and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 11/13/15.) Jury convicted Defendant of driving with alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. State failed to establish foundational requirement that his Breathalyzer test results were certified as accurate at least once within 62 days prior to his test. Although electronic certification contains raw date from accuracy tests conducted electronically by State Police, it provides no interpretation of that data, so it cannot be determined whether Breathalyzer test performed within accuracy tolerance and was certified as accurate for that time period. (HOFFMAN and HALL, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of DUI. State presented sufficient evidence from a credible police officer that Defendant emitted a strong odor of alcohol, exhibited slightly slurred speech, had bloodshot eyes, and performed poorly on field-sobriety tests. Appellate court declines to reweigh evidence against Defendant; weaknesses in evidence noted by Defendant do not lead appellate court to conclude that evidence of guilt was so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of Defendant's guilt. (NEVILLE and SIMON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of aggravated DUI. Parties stipulated that accident resulted in great bodily harm to a passenger in her vehicle, and to driver of other vehicle with which she collided. Parties stipulated that Defendant had, in her system, THC metabolite, from use of cannabis, and that Defendant's vehicle crossed into other driver's lane. Court erred in denying Defendant the right to present a defense, as she was not allowed to contest the "proximate cause" element of her charge. Defendant should have been allowed to present physician's testimony that Defendant has low blood pressure, and that it is possible that loss of consciousness right before accident was caused by this condition, for court to decide whether Defendant's sudden illiness was sole and proximate cause of accident.(STEWART and SCHWARM, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 9/30/15.) Police officers conducted traffic stop after twice observing passenger-side tires of Defendants' vehicle completely cross over solid white fog line on right side of road, first on entrance ramp and then while on interstate. Defendants were found in possession of at least 900 grams of heroin in duffel bag found on front passenger-seat floorboard, after dog sniff of exterior of vehicle. Court erred in granting dual motions to suppress heroin. Probable cause existed for stop, as Vehicle Code prohibits driving on shoulder. Traffic stop was not unduly delayed, as trained narcotics canine arrived less than 5 minutes after stop, and before purpose of stop was completed, and traffic stop last less than 10 minutes.(HOLDRIDGE, concurring; LYTTON, specially concurring.)