BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 539 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015 Counsel: Sandra Uribe ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Bill Quirk, Chair AB 539 (Levine) - As Introduced February 23, 2015 SUMMARY: Authorizes the issuance of a search warrant to compel a blood draw from a person suspected of operating a boat while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Specifically, this bill: 1)Permits the issuance of a search warrant when all of the following apply: a) A blood sample constitutes evidence that tends to show a violation of specified sections of the Harbors and Navigation Code relating to the operation of a marine vessel while under the influence of drugs or alcohol; b) The person from whom the sample is being sought has refused an officer's request to submit to, or has failed to complete, a blood test; and, c) The sample will be drawn from the person in a reasonable, medically approved manner. 2)States that these provisions are not intended to abrogate the court's duty to determine the propriety of issuing a search AB 539 Page 2 warrant on a case-by-case basis. EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 13.) 2)Defines a "search warrant" as a written order in the name of the people, signed by a magistrate and directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to search for a person or persons, a thing or things, or personal property, and in the case of a thing or things or personal property, bring the same before the magistrate. (Pen. Code, § 1523.) 3)States that a search warrant may be issued upon any of the following grounds: a) When the property was stolen or embezzled. b) When the property or things were used as the means of committing a felony. c) When the property or things are in the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a means of committing a public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing them from being discovered. d) When the property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony. e) When the property or things to be seized consist of evidence that tends to show that sexual exploitation of a child, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under the age of 18 years, has occurred or is AB 539 Page 3 occurring. f) When there is a warrant to arrest a person. g) When a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service has records or evidence, showing that property was stolen or embezzled constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are in the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their discovery. h) When a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service has records or evidence showing that property was stolen or embezzled constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are in the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their discovery. i) When the property or things to be seized include an item or any evidence that tends to show a violation of the Labor Code, as specified. j) When the property or things to be seized include a firearm or any other deadly weapon at the scene of, or at the premises occupied or under the control of the person arrested in connection with, a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or a physical assault. aa) When the property or things to be seized include a firearm or any other deadly weapon that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person described in subdivision (a) of Section 8102 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. bb) When the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in AB 539 Page 4 the custody or control of, a person who is subject to the prohibitions regarding firearms under specified provisions of the Family Code. cc) When the information to be received from the use of a tracking device constitutes evidence that tends to show that either a felony or a misdemeanor violation of the Fish and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public Resources Code. dd) When a sample of the blood of a person constitutes evidence that tends to show a violation of misdemeanor driving under the influence and the person from whom the sample is being sought has refused an officer's request to submit to, or has failed to complete, a blood test. ee) When the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of a person who is the subject of a gun violence re straining order. This final provision does not go into effect until January 1, 2016. (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a).) 4)Provides that a search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. (Pen. Code, § 1525.) 5)Requires a magistrate to issue a search warrant if he or she is satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the application or that there is probable cause to believe their existence. (Pen. Code, § 1528, subd. (a).) 6)Prohibits a person from operating a vessel or manipulate water skis, an aquaplane, or a similar device while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug. (Harb. & Nav. Code, § 655, subd. (b).) 7)Prohibits a person from operating any recreational vessel or manipulating any water skis, aquaplane, or similar device if AB 539 Page 5 the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more in his or her blood. (Harb. & Nav. Code, § 655, subd. (c).) 8)Prohibits a person from operating any vessel other than a recreational vessel if the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 percent or more in his or her blood. (Harb. & Nav. Code, § 655, subd. (d).) 9)Authorizes a peace officer who arrests a person for boating under the influence to ask that person to submit to chemical testing of his or her blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the drug or alcohol content of the blood. (Harb. & Nav. Code, § 655.1.) FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "AB 539 reasonably brings boating laws in line with DUI laws, and provides law enforcement with the proper tools to investigate and prosecute those boating under the influence." 2)Missouri v. McNeely: In Missouri v. McNeely (2013) 133 S.Ct. 1552, the United States Supreme Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every drunk-driving investigation sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant. Rather, the court directed that the matter be determined on a case-by-case assessment of the totality of the circumstances, in which the dissipation element is a factor in evaluating whether an exigency exists. "In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so." (Id. at p. 1561.) Before the McNeely decision, the California Supreme Court had applied older U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757, and held that the evanescent nature of blood alcohol created exigent circumstances and AB 539 Page 6 sufficient rationale for permitting warrantless chemical testing following a DUI arrest. (See People v. Superior Court (Hawkins) (1972) 6 Cal.3d 757, 761.) When Missouri v. McNeely was decided, there was nothing in the statute listing the types of evidence that may be obtained by means of a search warrant that would authorize a warrant for a DUI blood draw unless the crime under investigation was a felony. The Legislature subsequently amended the statute pertaining to grounds for the issuance of a search warrant to allow law enforcement to obtain one on this basis. (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a)(13).) However, the amendment to the statute did not cover misdemeanor offenses involving boating under the influence. This bill seeks to include those offenses as grounds for issuing a search warrant. 3)Boating Accident Statistics: According to a 2013 report by the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways, between 2009 and 2013 32% of all boating fatalities in the state involved alcohol. (See 2013 California Recreational Boating Accident Statistics, p. 17, http://dbw.ca.gov/Reports/BSRs/2013/2013_AccidentStats_CA_05_08 _2014.pdf .) 4)Argument in Support: The California State Sheriffs' Association, the sponsor of this bill, states, " In 2013, the United States Supreme Court (Missouri v. McNeely (2013) 569 U.S. ___ [133 S.Ct.1552]) ruled that the dissipation of alcohol in a person's bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant to determine whether a person was driving an automobile while under the influence. This ruling effectively requires law enforcement to obtain a search warrant when it needs to conduct a forced blood draw on a person who refuses to submit to, or fails to complete, a chemical test. The ruling recognized that exigent circumstances can arise, and in such a case, a warrantless blood draw can be justified. However, absent an exigency, a search warrant is required to compel a blood draw. "Under existing California law, the authority to issue search AB 539 Page 7 warrants is generally limited to cases involving felonies. In 2013, in response to the Supreme Court's decision in McNeely, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 717 (DeSaulnier, Chapter 317, Statutes of 2013). This measure permitted, but did not require, law enforcement to seek and obtain a search warrant when a sample of the blood of a person constitutes evidence that tends to show a violation of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and the person from whom the sample is being sought has refused an officer's request to submit to, or has failed to complete, a blood test. "While SB 717 addressed the issue identified in McNeely for cases involving driving under the influence, statutes governing the operation of a marine vessel while under the influence were not similarly amended. As such, there is no specific statutory authority that allows law enforcement to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in McNeely when it comes to the need to compel a blood draw in a boating under the influence case. AB 539 provides this limited authority to obtain a search warrant in compliance with all existing state and federal requirements when the alleged offense is the misdemeanor of boating under the influence. Being able to accurately and legally determine a person's intoxication level will allow for appropriate enforcement of California's boating laws while protecting the public's use and enjoyment of the state's navigable waters." 5)Argument in Opposition: According to the Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety, "The proposed amendment creates an unprecedented presumption of guilt, or at least probable cause, based upon speculative circumstantial evidence. Although there is an absolute need to prevent the operation of any vehicle under the influence, the most important purpose of the law is to protect the innocent from unnecessary searches. Each time the goal post is moved removing the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the slippery slope gets shorter as we near the bottom of the slope gets shorter as we near the bottom of the slope and accept the premise that the 'ends justify the means,' the death knell of democracy." 6)Related Legislation: AB 539 Page 8 a) AB 39 (Medina), would revise the procedure by which a magistrate may issue a search warrant by use of a telephone and facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or computer server. AB 39 is pending referral in the Senate Rules Committee. b) AB 1104 (Rodriguez), would authorize the issuance of a search warrant on the grounds that the property or thing to be seized consist of an item or constitute evidence that tends to show a violation of any of the crimes that were previously felonies but reduced to misdemeanors under Proposition 47. AB 1104 is pending hearing in this committee. c) AB 1365 (Lackey), would provide for oral fluids testing for purposes of determining if a driver is driving under the influence. AB 1365 is pending hearing in this committee. 7)Prior Legislation: a) AB 1014 (Skinner), Chapter 872, Statutes of 2014, provided, in pertinent part, that a search warrant may be issued when the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition that are in the custody or control of, or is owned or possessed by, a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order. b) SB 717 (DeSaulnier), Chapter 317, Statutes of 2013, authorized the issuance of a search warrant to allow a blood draw to be taken from a person in a reasonable, medically approved manner as evidence that the person has violated specified provisions relating to driving under the influence, and the person has refused a peace officer's request to submit to, or failed to complete a blood test. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California State Sheriffs' Association (Sponsor) California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains AB 539 Page 9 California District Attorneys Association California Yacht Brokers Association Marina Recreation Association Peace Officers Research Association of California Worldwide Boaters Safety Group Opposition Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744