Prologue — Mateljan v. California

| Supreme Court, U.8.

FILED

No.___05 = 665 NOV 2 2 2005

OFFICE OF THE CLEnK

In The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

ERIK MATELJAN, EMILY AFTANDILIANS,

BENJAMIN FANALE, CAROL PAULICK,

MATIN DAVARI,

Petitioners,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

S

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To

The California Court Of Appeal, Fourth

Appellate District, Division One

+

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

.

OLIVER PATRICK CLEARY

105 West “F” Street, Suite 411

San Diego, California 92101

Telephone: (619) 231-8874

Counsel of Record for Petitioners

MARY FRANCES PREVOST

555 West Beech Street, Suite 500

San Diego, California 92101

Telephone: (619) 692-9001

Counsel for Petitioners

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Since 1999, Police officers and prosecutors in the City

and County of San Diego, California, have allowed unli-

censed, unqualified, unsupervised contract employees to

draw the blood of DUI suspects. The blood was drawn in

dirty booking rooms, and sometimes in the jail garage

where multiple patrol cars emitted exhaust. They re-used

contaminated medical supplies from suspect to suspect

in violation of state and federal safety standards. For

years, defendants were kept in the dark. Law enforcement,

in conjunction with city and county prosecutors, withheld

these facts from petitioners here and thousands of un-

knowing suspects that came before them.

The California Fourth District Court of Appeal,

Division One, held there was a deliberate and systematic

violation of law, but denied Petitioners’ Fourth Amend-

ment, Due Process and Equal Protection claims. The

California Supreme Court denied review.

1. This Court should grant certiorari in light of the

California Court’s repudiation of this Court’s holding

in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 737 (1966).

2. Law enforcement’s wholesale disregard of local, state

and federal health and safety protocols violated Peti-

tioners’ Fourth Amendment rights.

3. Law enforcement’s intentional and wilful withholding

of Brady discovery violated petitioners’ rights to

Equal Protection and Due Process.

4. The intentional, wilfui, deliberate and systematic

violation of the law by law enforcement and prosecu-

tors warrants dismissal.

LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Erik Mateljan, Emily Aftandilians, Benjamin Fanale,

Carol Paulick, Matin Davari, Petitioners

People of the State of California, Respondent

C. The Court of Appeal Discarded Evidence

That Clearly Showed Petitioners Were

Placed in Danger of Infection and ‘he

Blood Draws Performed Were Unrea<on-

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.................. i

-LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............... ii

RETR ES AE EES oe eee ae ea 1

a td 1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ......... 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............ccsccccccsscnseovscssoovese 2

REASCNS WHY CERTIORARI SHOULD BE

SITTIN ih sochiciiteve:iskthinerslodbalaaincbncestlitisidaiabinaiageieiian 4

Fk EES ea nel ee ibs DEE We PN eI SE 5

I. SUPREME COURT REVIEW IS REQUIRED

IN LIGHT OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT'S

REPUDIATION OF THIS COURT’S HOLD-

ING IN SCHMERBER V. CALIFORNIA........... 5

A. The California Courts Now Authorize

Standardless Blood Draws in DUI Cases.

Prosecutor and Law Enforcement Officers

May Commit Crimes to Illegally Obtain

Evidence to Be Used Against California

8 EE RR SE RENO aT Set ASF 6

B. The Court of Appeal Impermissibly Shifted

the Burden of Proof to Petitioners, Setting

a Dangerous Standard in California.......... ll

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

D. There Can Be No Judgment Other Than

That Petitioners’ Fourth Amendment

Rights Were Violated .................cccceseeeeeeeeees 17

E. Vehicle Code Section 23158(a) is Co-

Extensive With the Fourth Amendment.... 19

II. THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTEC-

TION RIGHTS OF APPELLANTS HEREIN,

AND THOUSANDS BEFORE THEM, WERE

VIOLATED WHEN PUBLIC PROSECUTORS

AND OFFICIALS WITHHELD EVIDENCE

FROM DEFENSE ATTORNEYG.............0::0:0008 21

lif. THE DELIBERATE AND PERSISTENT VIO-

LATION OF LAW WARRANTS THE SANC-

TION OF DISMISSAL................. saddghdeddicegdipans 23

CMTE CAPE ih pddsdontcindddimanedadateacdiadicoamprncesidiebnetoane igen 29

AppendixA People v. Mateljan, 129 Cal.App 3d

Ee i) ici ds ccctvdebhoctsdetasdabictecribereciouss A-1

Appendix B San Diego Trial Court Opinion,

IS Fe, Se bois denise pncntibinsenionadeligasarve B-1

AppendixC San Diego Trial Court Opinion,

BI Bis I sckdelnsisicdintubaiodeniadtaciokenniors C-1

Appendix D Supreme Court denial of Petition for

Review, August 24, 2005 00.00.0000... ceeeeeeee D-1

Appendix E Public Records Act responses................... E-1

Appendix F Immunity Agreements ...............:0..:ccccc0 F-1

AppendixG California Department of Health

; Services investigating letter .................... G-1

Appendix H

Petition for Review (Mateljan, et al.)....... H-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS -— Continued

Page

AppendixI Opinion of the California Attorney

SEERA ATE BEN AEE I I-1

AppendixJ Opinion of the California Attorney

RE SEI RE ea eS SOL J-1

Appendix K Opinion of the California Attorney

NN cetniiinelditaciiniiianibindly Gxtcbbscthiteghindiilasttiiees K-1

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995)................:ccceceeeeeeeeeees 18

Baluyut v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 826 (1996)............ 21

Barber v. Municipal Court, 24 Cal.3d 742 (1979)............. 24

Brady v. Maryland, 73 U.S. 83 (1963) ................000000 passim

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)...........cccccccscccseseeeeeseeeeeees 22

Coolige v. New Hampshire, 493 U.S. 443 (1971).............. 11

Cooper v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 35

a ae Be Cenk iciciceiticiateriaticdchiapcitient chateticieeinibitiniiags 8

Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960).............::0006 30

In re Garringer, 188 Cal.App.3d 1149 (1987).................+. 25

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)........ ates 24

Magit v. Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Cal.2d 74

SIT) ivisesueiccastnimetns iiiemesitaladoianadsinhchpabateinsiiniliondaaiiagtadistbiial 8

Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.

ED vinsclichienciiiettiekabuitalaitidinastioacinisntadiuaititilicieaebtiiasaobilimeadans 9, 10

Newhouse v. Board of Osteopathic Examiners, 159

SE ATI Cate COE coptictccncnenditecsiocbineniciincnsividintavimenue 8

Nordinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992).............cccceeeeeeeeeeeeee 21

North Dakota v. Barnick, 477 N.W.2d 200 (N.D.

tite lata ihe dl aiainiatieh naa tlaty inlet tala te hecdiniediini 20

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)......... 29, 30

People v. Brophy, 15 Cal.App.4th 932 (1992).................... 25

People v. Esayian, 112 Cal.App.4th 1031

RRR ie ieee Mer CP Ree NE il, 12, 17, 18, 20

vii

T/ OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

People v. Fiscalini, 228 Cal.App.3d 1639 (1991)...........0+. 15

People v. Garcia, 17 Cal.App.4th 1169 (1993)................... 23

People v. Mateljan, 129 Cal.App.3d 367 (2005) ......... passim

People v. Mateljan, 2005 Cal. LEXIS 9365 (Cal.,

BR TAB ree ieciceninewsaviiinicintieeleenitiinagsiiunitgigitibthiitintsiitiakelinies 1

People v. McHugh, 119 Cal.App.4th 202 (2004)................ 20

People v. McKay, 27 Cal.4th 601 (2002)... cece 19

People v. Morris, 46 Cal.3d 1 (1988)..............cccccesesessereeeees 24

People v. Nunn, 65 Cal.App.2d 188 (1944).............ccccceeseeee 8

People v. Rehman, 253 Cal.App.2d 119 (1967)................ 8,9

People v. Rutherford, 14 Cal.3d 399 (1976)...........cccccceeeees 24

People v. Willis, 28 Cal.4th 22 (2002) ..0........:ccccceeesecceeeeees 18

Rittenband v. Cory, 159 Cal.App.3d 410 (1984).......... 21, 22

Be O Feme, GID TTA. BEB TE eee penciciveisscececsinsisuaviintvnitinnes 22

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 737 (1966) ........... passim

Texas v. Laird, 38 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.App.-Austin

TD cncovscvcvtepisovetpilssiindempimaphedsinisintasidimiimniaaiuatiasesine 20

United States v. Chapel, 55 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir.

SIO coccinvcvsncicsccevssipeabscssitiindetbibspeienmnatenilituinicdstanaiainsankeds 9

United States v. Escalante, 637 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir.

I scvicceciitiiescnnsitirsinciihiiapihviiacedaiitiie tadidiabilicstusdh hinds ta dkdecatiel 28

United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir.

BUD sicichcrcicitnieitiinaasicdilaipiidiaideadibinipieuienibusiaedods 28

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 566 U.S. 740 (1984) ..00........ccccceeeeceeees 11

Wheeler v. DMV, 34 Cal.App.4th 228 (1994)..........0...:2000. 10

Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) 200000... ceeee eens 9, 15, 17

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

STII SIE, 150 tssccnenesteceeyiseeusersooceccossodervessecoons passim

SD SE LO passim

nT ITE Tosa tce cen cedeneeguecseppensnensnoenennsenes passim

SEY MACEDUL. JEW evevecestoveetesvesssevccerneserescoqsousees passim

STATUTES

18 United States Code section 241 .............cccccccccecececseeeceeee 7

18 United States Code section 242 ............cccccccccccccceeeeeeeeees 7

28 United States Code section 1257 2.0.0.0... ccccccccccceceeeeeeees 1

California Business & Professions Code section 145. ......... 6

California Business & Professions Code section

ETERS ORSON 6

California Business & Professions Code section

AGELESS SR A ee 6

California Business & Professions Code section

se csidusbusuntavecs 6, 19

California Business & Professions Code section

SONS ESS EGF OCR a ee Te 7

California Business & Professions Code section

it SE EE SS a ee 7

California Business & Professions Code section

I a seubauuavesioeuese 7

California Business & Professions Code section

i i 7 oo deughoubansuaveunessesoebcseet 7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

California Business & Professions Code section

ID ereeccides in hithicisahdatintitrcataniiicibancieanctndnttbeatldiiaieahitd 10, 14

California Code of Regulations Title XVII........................ 11

California Government Code section 6250 ......................... 3

California Penal Code section 182 ................:cccccceccesceeeeeeees 8

California Vehicle Code section 13343 ...................:.cccc0004 10

Calitornia Vehicle Code section 23152..............cccccccceeeeeeeees 3

[Former] California Vehicle Code section 23158 ....... passi

California Proposition & ..........cccccccscsssorrrsesovescsseceeesees 19, 20

a Ns UEP scthenniicnnasinstetucnyritvcinpsintsntnantiidantontin 9

Be Ca, Bay Gaa, Gas GE cattcrectecettisestvctinsinicvteveintntin aii 9

Br a Be I, Ny Se cateenniehndulicdnbnaveincbdaeinebiiteeesindaiectidis 9

MISCELLANEOUS

8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988)

Constitutional Law, section 602 ................cccccceececeeeeeeees 22

Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Guidelines for Pre-

vention of Transmission of Human Immunodefi-

ciency and Hepatitis B Virus to Health-Care and

Public Safety Worle es (1GGG)....cccccoccvcecsveveveceresccesecaceseves 10

ial 1

OPINIONS BELOW

The San Diego Superior Court, denied Petitioners

Mateljan’s and Aftandilians’ consolidated motion to sup-

press and dismiss on January 21, 2003. See, Appendix B.

It also denied Petitioners Fanale’s, Davari’s and Paulick’s

consolidated motion to suppress on March 19, 2003. See,

Appendix C. Petitioners appealed. The Appellate Division

of the San Diego Superior Court affirmed the trial courts’

rulings without opinion.

The California Fourth District Court of Appeal,

Division One, consolidated both sets of cases. It upheld the

lowers courts’ rulings, thus denying Petitioner’s suppres-

sion motions based on Fourth Amendment, Due Process

and Equal Protection claims. People v. Mateljan, 129

Cal.App.3d 367 (2005). See, Appendix A. Review was

denied by the California Supreme Court. People v. Matel-

jan, 2005 Cal. LEXIS 9365 (Cal., Aug. 24, 2005). See,

Appendix D.

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consti-

tution provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their per-

sons, houses, papers, and effects, against unrea-

sonable searches and seizures, shall not be

violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirma-

tion, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

2

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitu-

tion provides that no person shall be deprived of life,

liberty or property without Due Process of Law.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitu-

tion provides, in relevant part:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall .. .

be confronted with the witnesses against him; to

have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses

in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Coun-

sel for his defence.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution makes the above amendments applicable to

the states and guarantees Due Process and Equal Protec-

tion under law.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Law enforcement agencies in the City and County of

San Diego contracted with American Foren - Nurses

(“AFN”)’ in 1999 to provide licensed medical personnel to

draw suspects’ blood in DUI cases. Pursuant to health and

safety regulations only certain individuals were allowed to

draw blood for forensic alcohol testing. AFN employees

who called themselves “phlebotomists” were excluded from -

that statute. [Former] Veh. Code § 23158, subd. (a).

* AFN employed non-medical, unlicensed personnel to draw blood.

The corporation, whose address is a Mail Boxes Etc. mail drop, is run

out of the Palm Springs mansion of Faye Battiste-Otto. AFN has no

storage facilities for medical supplies; employees follow no protocol for

blood draws; employees are not supervised. Employees are not legally

entitled to carry needles.