[PDF] [PDF] Driving Under the Influence in California: Mercer v - CORE

[PDF] THE DEVELOPMENT OF CALIFORNIA DRUNK-DRIVING

The "per se" law prohibits driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 10 percent or greater, regardless of impairment California Vehicle Code §§23152, 23153

[PDF] CALIFORNIA DUI LAWS - Jagnavymil

Furthermore, the law is more strict if the driver is under 21 years old The legal BAC limit for drivers under 21 is 01 ; that level can be reached by drinking less  

[PDF] Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol: Could California Do More to

died of alcohol-related traffic incidents (California Department of Motor Vehicles [ DMV] minimum length of the DUI program is established by law and may be 

[PDF] Driving Under the Influence in California: Mercer v - CORE

Developing case law has defined DUI as driving while under the influence of intoxicating alcohol or drugs to such an extent that it adversely and materially affects 

[PDF] Summary of Laws Governing Alcohol Possession/Consumption and

minimum fine of $200 00 Page 2 California Vehicle Code, Section 23140 – It is illegal for anyone under 21 who is intoxicated (blood alcohol level of 05) to drive  

[PDF] California Judges Benchguide 81 - Law Library for San Bernardino

It is no defense to a charge of driving under the influence of any drug or the combined influence of alcohol and any drug in violation of Veh C §23152 or § 23153 

[PDF] driving under the influence - Stanford Health Care

Underage Drinking and Driving Consequences For Teens Zero Tolerance Law □ California has a zero tolerance law The legal maximum Blood Alcohol 

[PDF] Digest of Impaired Driving and Selected Beverage Control Laws

Minimum Age Alcohol Laws, Dram Shop critical impaired driving laws for all 50 California considered as a prior conviction CA51852 Vehicle §23521 also 

[PDF] california alcohol serving laws age

[PDF] california alcohol time

[PDF] california bar erie question

[PDF] california bar exam

[PDF] california bar exam 2015

[PDF] california bar exam essay questions

[PDF] california bar exam essay templates

[PDF] california bar exam essay topics frequency

[PDF] california bar exam multiple choice

[PDF] california bar exam questions 2019

[PDF] california bar exam questions exposed

[PDF] california bar exam questions february 2018

[PDF] california bar exam questions february 2019

[PDF] california bar exam questions february 2020

[PDF] california bar exam questions july 2017

California W

estern Law Review (&#+-*& "./"-*2"1&"2V olume 280)"-- "Driving" Under the Inlfluence in California: Mer cer v. Department -&1&*$*!"-/%"*50"* "&*(&#+-*& "-1",-/)"*/+#+/ +-"%& (".Kimberle y F. Scott F ollow this and additional works at: %//,. . %+(-(3 +))+*.(2 2.("!0 2(-Recommended Citation " +))"*!"!&//&+*

Scott, Kimberle

y F. (1991) ""Driving" Under the Inlfluence in California: Mercer v. Department of Motor "%& (".(&#+-*&"./"-*2"1&"2

1&(("/

. %+(-(3 +))+*.(2 2.("!0 2(-1+( &..This Comment is br

ought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for &* (0.&+*&*(&#+-*&

"./"-*2"1&"23*0/%+-&4"!"!&/+-+# %+(-(3+))+*.+-)+-"&*#+-)/&+*,("." +*/ /() 2.("!0brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.ukprovided by California Western School of Law

NOTE "DRIVING" UNDER THE INFLUENCE IN CALIFORNIA:

MERCER V. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

INTRODUCTION

California VehiclecCodecsectioncwyvlflwlamcprovidescthatceitciscunlawfulcfor orcunderctheccombinedcinfluencecofcancalcoholiccbeveragecandcanycdrugpc to drive acvehiclesekcTheclawcseemscsimplecenoughscUntilcrecentlypchoweverp edrivingecacmotorc vehiclecforcpurposescofcconvictioncundercthecrecently yc

Thischascmadecit

influences Thecinterestcincpreventingc motorcvehiclecaccidentsciscthecstrongestcpolicy zc

Itchascbeencestimatedcthatcethe

1. CALscVEH. CODEc§c23152(a) (West Supp. v989mc(emphasis added). Unless otherwise

indicated, all further statutory references are to the California Vehicle Code.

2. Developing case law has defined DUI as driving while under the influence of intoxicating

alcohol or drugs to such an extent that it adversely and materially affects the ability to drive a motorcvehiclecsafelycorcwithcduecregardctocthecrightscofcothersscJoycepcRecommendations for Safer Highways, v9cTRIALc6uclv98ymsceTocbecundercthecinfluencec...the intoxicating drug must so far affect the nervous system, the brain or muscles as to impair to an appreciable degree the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinary prudent and cautious person in full possession of his faculties, using care and under like conditions." Gilbert v. Municipal Court for NorthcOrangecCountycJudicialcDistspc7ycCalscAppscydc7wypcvzucCalscRptrsc897clv977ms DrivingcwhilecintoxicatedclDWImcisctheccounterpartctocDUIscThe Drining Driver, PREVENTION percentscSee supra notecvscSincecthecenactmentcofcthiscamendmentpcalcoholrrelatedcaccidents INJURYcACCIDENTS, StatewidecIntegratedcTrafficcRecordscSystemspctableclflApcatcwwc[hereinafter decreasedcproportionallyscId. tablec5B, atcwws DrunkcDrivingpcGeneralcStatisticscyclSeptscv989mscSee generally CommentpcIntoxication and Criminal Responsibility, lfl7cHARVscLscREV. vuzlflclv9zzms

lflscPerezcvscCampbellpczuwcUsSsc6y7pc6lfl7clv97vmclBlackmunpcJspcconcurringms1Scott: "Driving" Under the Influence in California: Mercer v. Department

Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1991

CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW[Vol. 28

since March 11, 1968.6 Government figures estimate that at least one in every 2,000 drivers is drunk each night but fewer than one percent are ever arrested. 7 raisecitscdrinkingcagectoctwentyrones wc

Andpcbecausecofcfederalclegislationp

thosecappearingconctobaccocproductsse zc

Thesecsanctionscinclude

6c installationcofcbreath tionp v7c

6. CAL. HIGHWAY PATROLpcsupra notec3.

7. QuadepcWar oncDrunkcDriving:cwlflpuuucLivescatcStakepc68 A.B.A. J. 1551 (1982).

8. Id. In Scandinavian countries, where tough DUIclaws have been implemented for

decadespcthereciscnegativecpubliccsentimentctoward drinking in excess and driving. Acker, A Report on America's War AgainstcDrunkcDrivingpc25 CRiM. L. BuLL. 376, 394 (1989).

9. Acker, supracnote 8, at y9vs

vuscId. at y9wscIt is estimated that the average child has seen at least 70,000 messages to drink beer bycthe age of vlflscMcAllister, The Drunk Driving Crackdown: Is It Working?, 74 AsBsAscJspcSept. vpcv988pcat 52, lfl6scEach year more people in America are arrested for drunk driving than for any other offense; beer is the beverage which a majority of convicted DUI offenders were drinking before their arrestscPREVENTION FILEpcsupra notecwpcatcvyrvzs

11. Ackerpcsupra notec8, at y9ws

12. McAllister, supra note vupcat 54.

vyscAcker, supra note 8pcat y9yscThese warnings read: eGOVERNMENTcWARNING: lvm According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcohol beverages impairs your abilityctocdrivecaccarcorcoperatecmachinerypcandcmayccausechealthcproblemssecId.

14. Moss, New Attacks on Drunk Drivers, 73 A.B.A. J., Feb. 1, v987pcat20. Critics contend

that some judges refuse to implement tough sentences because they drink and drive themselves. Id. vlflscCompton, Community Service as a Sanction for Driving While Intoxicated, 21 PROS., Js

NATkLcDISTscATr'YS Asclflr6clv988ms

v6scMoss, supra note 14, at 20. These stickers read "Convicted Drunk DriverrRestricted

LicensesecId.

v7scMarcottipcNew Attacks on Drunk Drivers, 7ycAsBsAscJ., Febscvpcv987pcatcwvs2California Western Law Review, Vol. 28 [1991], No. 1, Art. 10

1991] "DRIVING" UNDER THE INFLUENCE IN CALFORIA: MMCER V. DMV 125

use of a drug, known ascAntabusepcthatcmakescthemcseriouslycillcifcthey drinkse lflc offenses 9c youpcbutctocprotectcussek w issuec ancoverviewcofcthecrecentcCaliforniacSupremecCourtcdecisioncincMercer v.

Department of Motor Vehicles

22
which held that volitional vehicle movement is necessary to be convicted of DUI in California. This Note reviewscthe pendingcrelevantclegislations

A. Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles

v8scMosspcsupra notecvzpcatcwus v9scMcAllisterpcsupra notec10, atclfl6s wuscId. DEPT. OFcTRANSPORTATIONpcDRUNKcDRIVINGcFACTSclv98zms wwsc53 Calsydc7lflypc809 Pswdczuzpc280 CalscRptrsc7zlflclv99vmc[hereinaftercMercer-Sup. Cts]p reversingc222 Cal. App. 3d 823, 271 Cal. Rptr. 885 (2d Dist. 1990) (222 Cal. App. 823-35 was deleted when the California Supreme Court granted review; all further Appellate Court references are to 271 Cal. Rptr. onlymc[hereinaftercMercer-App.]. wyscMercer-Sup. Ctspc53 Cal.3d at 756, 809 P.2d atczulflpcw8ucCalscRptrscatc7z6s wzscId.

25. Id. atc7lfl7pc8u9cPswdcatczulflpcw8ucCalscRptrscatc7z6s3Scott: "Driving" Under the Influence in California: Mercer v. Department

Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1991

126 CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REvIEw [Vol. 28

curb of a residential street, the engine was running and the headlights were on.' The officer rocked the car and banged on it several times with his flashlight before Mercer woke. 27

Oncecarousedcby thecofficerpcMercer

vc

Mercercwas

wc

Thecofficer

Mc

Atctrialpcthecofficer

ylfl v

Section 8y6

of the Penal Code permits an officer to make a warrantless misdemeanor" 8 w6scId. w7scId. atc7lfl7pc8u9cPswdcat zu6pcw8ucCalscRptrscatc7z7s

28. TheccarchadcacmanualctransmissionscId.

29. Id.

30. Id.

31. Id.

32. Id.

33. AtcthectimecofcMercerkscarrestpcthecpertinentcpartcofcCaliforniacVehiclecCodecsection

wyvlfl7lamlvmcprovided: incidentalctocaclawfulcarrestssssc[F]ailurectocsubmitcto... thecrequiredcchemical testingcwillcresultcincacfinecandc. .. the revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of three years if thecrefusalcoccurscwithin sevencyearscofctwocorcmorecseparatecviolationscof. ..section 23152.. swhich resulted in convictions. CAL. VEH. CODE § 23157(a)(1) (West 1991). Each state throughout the United States has enacted an implied consent statute. Note, Implied Consent Statutes: What is Refusal?, 9 AM. JscTRIAL ADvoc. 423, 424 lv986mscRefusing to submit to a chemical test is a crime in and of itself in at least three states. Note, Shed Thou No Blood. The Forcible Removal of Blood Samples fron Drunk Driving Suspects, 60 SscCALscL. REv. 1115, vvy8clv987mscAlaska and Nebraska, for example, impose a penalty for refusal equal to the penalty for a conviction of misdemeanor DUIscId.

34. Mercer-Sup. Ct., lflycCal.3d at 757, 8u9cP.2d at 406, w8ucCal. Rptr. at 7z7s

ylflscId. at 7lfl8pc8u9cPswdcat 406, w8ucCal. Rptr. at 7z7s y6scMercer-App., w7vcCal. Rptr. at 887scMercer plead guilty to one count of public intoxication in violation of California Penal Code section 6z7lfmscId.

37. MercerrSupscCtspc53 Cal.3d at 758, 809 P.2d at 406, 280 Cal. Rptr. at 747.

38. DUI is a felony if thereciscbodilycinjuryclorcfatalitymctocacpersoncothercthancthecdrivers

CAL. VEilscCODE §c23153 lWestc1968).4California Western Law Review, Vol. 28 [1991], No. 1, Art. 10

1991] "DRIVING" UNDER THE INFLUENCE IN CALIFORNIA: MERCER V. DMV 127

arrested has committed a public offense in hispresence.... Pursuant to section 13353(a)(3) and in light of Mercer's two previous DUI convictions, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked his driving privileges for three years.' Mercer challenged his arrest and subsequent license revocation." The trial court concluded that the revocation of Mercer's license was improper because section 23152(a) requires vehicular movement and the officer did not observe Mercer's car move. 42

Thereforecthecviolationcdid

notcoccurcincthecofficerkscpresencecascrequiredcfor aclawfulcDUI arrest pursuantctocPenalcCodecsectionc836. 4

1 The Second Appellate District

reversed the trial court's decision. It held that Mercer's DUIcarrest was justified because Mercer had "exercised such a degree of control over the vehicle that he was driving" within the meaning of section 23152(a) and that the offense was committed in the arresting officer's presence." The court reasoned that the officer saw Mercer "assume active control over the vehicle and take every step necessary to resume travel along the public street," and that the vehicle never moved in the officer's presence did not invalidate the drunk driving arrest. 4 pursuantctocPenalcCodecsectionc836. Theccourtcreversedcthecdecisioncofcthe

39. CALscPENAL CODE §c836 lWestc1968) lemphasiscaddedms

zuscMercer-Sup. Ctspc53 Cal.3d at 758, 809 P.2d atczu6pc280 CalscRptrscatc7z7scFormer tworyearcsuspensioncofcdrivingcprivilegescundercsimilarccircumstancesscCALscVEi. CODE § andcdealtcwithcseparatelyscMercer-App., 271 CalscRptrscatc886-87. Thecfirstcsentencecinca stateciscacprivilegesecJoycepcsupra notecwpcatc6yscHoweverpcrevokingclicensesciscnotcalways licensesccontinuectocdrivescQuadepcsupra notec7s zvscMercer-Sup. Ct., 53 Cal.3d at 758, 809 P.2d 406, 280 Cal. Rptr. atc7z7s zwscId. zyscId. ThecLegislaturechascenactedcancexceptionctocPenalcCodecsectionc8y6pcsubdivisioncvp protrudingcintocthecstreetscId. atc76vpc809 Pswdcatczu8pc280 CalscRptrscatc7z9scSectionczuyuuslfl anycdrugpcorcunderctheccombinedcinfluencecofcancalcoholiccbeveragecandcanycdrugsecCAL. VEHs CODE §czuyuuslflclWestcv98zmscHoweverpcneithercexceptioncappliescwhencacvehiclecisclawfully parkedpcascincMercer. Mercer-Sup. C., 53 Cal.3d at 761, 809 P.2d at 408, 280 Cal. Rptr. at 7z9s zzscId. atc7lfl8pc809 Pswdcatczu6pcw8ucCalscRptrscatc7z7s

zlflscMercer-App., 271 CalscRptrscatc888.5Scott: "Driving" Under the Influence in California: Mercer v. Department

Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1991

CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW

Second District and concluded that "[s]ection 23152 requires proof of volitional movement of a vehicle" to justify an arrest for misdemeanor DUI. The court based its decision on: (1) theceplaincmeaningecofcthe z7 zc

Additionallypcthe

statutess z9 B. California Precedent Supporting DUI Without Movement decisioncincMercer. The Mercer appellateccourtcreliedconcseveralcearlier Californiaccasesctocsupportcitscholdingcthatcvehiclecmovementciscnot required theccourtccitedcascauthoritycwerecPeople v. WilsonP and Henslee v.

Department of Motor Vehicles.

5 In Wilsonpcthe defendant was parked on the shoulder of a freeway, approximately one and a half miles from the nearest on ramp, with the left side of the vehicle partially in a traffic lane. 2

Thecenginecwascrunningcand

lflyc

AcCaliforniacHighwaycPatrol

zc

Thecdriver

andcwascsubsequentlycarrestedcforcDUL lfllflc

Thecdrivercchallengedcsection

46. Mercer-Sup. Ct., lflycCalsydcatc768pc8u9cPswdcatczvzpcw8ucCalscRptrscatc7lfllfls

z7scId. z8scId. atc76wpc8u9cPswdcatczu9pcw8ucCalscRptrscatc7lflus z9scId. atc769pc8u9cPswdcatczvzpcw8ucCalscRptrscatc7lfllfls lfluscv76cCalscAppsc3d SuppscvpcwwwcCalscRptrsclflzuclwdcDistscv98lflmclholdingcthatcincthe CourtcupheldcthecWilson decisioncincitscMercer opinioncandcemphasizedcthatce[w]ecdocnotchold ofcevidcncecofcobservedcmovementcofcacvehiclec.... Nothing in this opinion calls in question the holding of these cases." Mercer-Sup. C., 53 Cal.3d at 756-57, 809 P.2d atczulflpcw8ucCals

Rptrscatc7z6s

lflvscHenslee, v68cCalscAppscydczzlflpcwvzcCalscRptrscwz9s lflwscWilson, v76cCalscAppscydcSuppscatclflpcwwwcCalscRptrscatclflzvs

53. Id.

54. Id.

55. Id. atcyrzpcwwwcCalscRptrscatclflzvs

[Vol. w86California Western Law Review, Vol. 28 [1991], No. 1, Art. 10

1991] "DRIVING" UNDER THE INFIUENCE IN CAU1FORNIA: MERCER V. DMV vw9

adequate notice of what conduct is unlawful.' The Wilson court concluded that the word "drive" is not vague and reasoned that a "reasonable person would construe the phrase 'to drive a 5 The Mercer court also relied on the Sixth District decision of Henslee lfl In Hensleepcthe arresting officer noticed a vehicle parked in a traffic lane and facing in the wrong direction. 59

Thecenginecwascrunningpctheclightscwere

hers vc speechs 6wc hercdrivingcprivilegescforcsixcmonthssk ThecSecondcAppellatecDistrictcCourtcagreedcwithcthecanalysiscofcWilson and Henslee andcappliedcthosecrationalesctocthecfactcsituationcatcissuecincwhichcno

56. Id. atclflpwwwcCalscRptrscatclflzws

57. Id. atc6pcwwwcCalscRptrscatclflzys

58. Mercer-App., 271 CalscRptrscatc889s

59. Henslee, v68cCalscAppsc3d atczz8pcwvzcCalscRptrscatcwlflus

60. Id.

6vscId. Thoughcgenerallycacdefensivecmovepcactwistclockcorctwistcholdpciscalsocusedctocwake

acsleepingcintoxicatedcpersonscId. at 448, 214 Cal. Rptr. at 251.

62. Id.

63. Id.

64. Id. While the court found that "such a minimal movement ssscis not the type of driving

which the vehicle code seeks to prohibit," the Sixth District refused to read section wyvlflwcso narrowly. Id. at 451, 214 Cal. Rptr. at 253. Although the appellate court held that the

defendant drove her vehiclecascacmattercofclawpcitcalsocnotedcthatcsectioncwyvlflwlamcincludescactive

controlcovercacvehiclescId. atczlflvrlflwpcwvzcCalscRptrscatcwlflyscThecCaliforniacSupremecCourt rejectedcsuchcacbroadcinterpretationcofcthecwordcedrivesecMercer-Sup. Ctspc53 Cal.3d at 768,

809 P.2d at 413, 280 Cal. Rptr. atc7lflzs

65. Henslee, 168 CalscApp. 3d atczz8pcwvzcCalscRptrscatcwlflvs

66. Id. atczz9pcwvzcCalscRptrscatcwlflvs

67scId. at 450, 214 Cal. Rptr. atcwlflws

68. Id. atc451-52, 214 Cal. Rptr. at 253.7Scott: "Driving" Under the Influence in California: Mercer v. Department

Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1991

CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW

C. California Precedent Requiring Movement for DUI. The Second Appellate District decision in Mercer was in direct contradic- tion to the recent decision of the First District in Music v. Department of Motor Vehicles' which involved an almost identical fact situation. The California Supreme Court relied on the rationale of Music when it reversed Mercer and held that volitional movement of the vehicle is required for a lawfulcDUIcarrestsk IncMusic, thecofficercdrovecpastcactruckcthreectimescwithinctheccoursecofcan hours 7vc wakecthecdriversk yc glassypcandchecseemedcconfuseds 7zc

Whencthecofficercinstructedchimctocshut

7lflc

Thecdrivercclaimedcthat

76c
The sectioncvyylflys 78
ThecdrivercincMusic challengedcthecvaliditycofcthecsuspensioncofchiscdriving movedcincthecofficerkscpresences 9c oncthecCaliforniaccasescofcPadilla v. Meese' 0 andcPeoplecvscEnglemans v

69. 221 Cal. App. 3d 841, 270 Cal. Rptr. 692 (1st Dist. 1990), upon which the California

Supreme Court relied when it ruledconcMercer.

7uscMercer-Sup. Ct., lflycCalsydcatc768pc809 Pswdcatczvypc280 CalscRptrscatc755.

7vscMusic, wwvcCalscAppscydcatc8zzpc270 CalscRptrscatc69zs

72. Id.

73. Id.

7zscId.

75. Id.

76. Id.

77scId.

78. Id. at 846, 270 Cal. Rptr. at 695.

79. Idscat 851, 270 Cal. Rptr. at 698.

80. 184 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 229 Cal. Rptr. 310 (3d Dist. 1986).

81. 116 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 14, 172 Cal. Rptr. 474 (2d Dist. 1981).

[Vol. 288California Western Law Review, Vol. 28 [1991], No. 1, Art. 10

1991] "DRIvING" UNDER THE INFLUENCE IN CAUFORNIA: MERCER V. DM 1 131

In Padilla, a highway patrol officer received a call from an inspector at an agricultural inspection station; the inspector had stopped a car whose driver was intoxicated.' When he arrived at the inspection station, the officer found Padilla sitting in the driver's seat with the engine running." He placed Padilla under arrest for DUI and requested that the defendant submit to a chemical test." Padilla refused and consequently his driving privilege was suspended.' On appeal, the Third District concluded that a vehicle must be moved in the presence of the arresting officer in order for the offense to occur in his presence so as to enable him to make a valid misdemeanor arrest.' The Music court also relied on the Second District decision in Engleman. In Engleman, two California Highway Patrol officers found the defendantquotesdbs_dbs19.pdfusesText_25