# Prologue — Mateljan v. California

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0506%3A0

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Prologue
- **Published:** January 1, 2006
- **Citation:** 546 U.S. 1171

## Text

| 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0506%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.