Authorities have arrested a suspect in the Halloween hit and run that left three teenagers dead last Friday, October 31, 2014.. The incident occurred on Friday at around 7:00 p.m. at the intersection of Grand Street and Fairhaven Avenue in Santa Ana, California. Twins Lexia and Lexandra Perez were crossing the street with their friend Andrea Gonzales when they were hit by a car. The driver left the scene and police later found the car at a parking lot. The Honda CR-V had front end damage; the police do not know if the driver had been under the influence at the time of the accident. They did know that there were passengers in the Honda. Later that weekend on Sunday, police made several arrests but only kept the suspect, Jaquinn Bell. His mother, half-sister, daughter and son were arrested, but only he was held and charged with a felony hit and run charge (Vehicle Code Sections 20001 to 20003). Currently he is facing an additional charge of voluntary manslaughter and looking at up to 17 years in prison. (Penal Code Sections 192, 192.5 and 193).

Bell has a record in Orange County for driving related offenses. In 2009 he was charged with DUI and driving with a suspended license. In August of this year he was convicted of a misdemeanor hit and run and driving under the influence and was sentenced to 10 days jail. His license has been suspended since October. Felony Hit and Run causing death can cause a person to be sentenced for up to 4 years in prison.

Notably, the actual accident which caused the death of the children is NOT the crime in this instance; the crime is leaving the scene. Many accidents occur with the unfortunate result of people dying but that does not make it a crime. Making a mistake also known as simple negligence that results in someone dying is not a crime and is usually handled through the insurance companies like any other car accident as a civil matter.

Oftentimes people flee the scene of the accident because they are under the influence. In that case, if the authorities find them to have killed someone, while under the influence, they can also be sentenced to state prison. Importantly, people with prior convictions for drunk driving who commit another drunk driving offense and kill someone may now be charged with murder under the Watson Rule, referring to the case of People v. Watson. A conviction in that instance can lead to a sentence of 15 years to life.

On April 18, 2013, the United States Supreme Court made a ruling that directly affects Drunk Driving Cases in California and across the country. The Supreme Court case is Missouri v. Mcneely, 2013 DJDAR 4918. Previous to this court ruling it was generally held that if a driver suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol refused a chemical test then he could be forced to give blood without requiring a warrant from a judge. In its most extreme, the driver could actually be forcibly strapped to a chair and blood drawn from his body, all without a warrant. This meant that the officer involved in the arrest would make the decision on whether to conduct a “search” of the driver’s blood by piercing his skin to extract the blood.

It is well established that a search inside one’s body is a search protected under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. As such, a warrant must issue from a judge to allow the search to occur. There are various exceptions to the warrant requirement to include if the person consents to be searched or if exigent circumstances exists. Exigent circumstances refers to a situation that requires an immediate search out of fear that the evidence may not be available if law enforcement has to wait for a warrant.

In drunk driving cases the exigent circumstance that commonly exist is the dissipation of alcohol (or drugs) from the blood of the suspect as time passes. There is no debate that the liver will eliminate alcohol from the suspect’s blood at about the rate of one drink an hour for a 175 lb man. So, the more time that passes between the time of driving and the blood test may cause law enforcement to lose evidence needed to make their case.

In the Mcneely case, the Supreme Court decided that from now on, the natural dissipation of alcohol from the blood is no longer an automatic exigent circumstance making a warrant unnecessary. Each case must be decided on its individual merit when deciding if a warrant should have been procured. The court noted that technology is such that a warrant could be issued by telephone and therefore relatively quickly without unduly compromising law enforcement’s ability to gather evidence. Until the Supreme Court’s decision, alcohol dissipating from blood was considered an exigent circumstance where no warrant was required in California. That is no longer the law.

Practically speaking however, this decision may not change how drunk driving cases are handled. Most people will probably still consent to a chemical test (blood or breath) because a refusal can lead to a 1 year license suspension by the DMV irrespective of what happens in court. To most people the license suspension is worse then a misdemeanor conviction for drunk driving, especially in far flung, car dependent Southern California. In order to accommodate the Supreme Court decision the county courts will probably designate judges to be on 24-hour call in order to evaluate whether a warrant should issue in a drunk driving case. In fact, Orange County already has a 24- hour judge on call for the purpose of deciding bail. While judges will certainly not be happy about having to deal with making a warrant decision at 3:00 am because a Newport Beach reveler drank too many and got in his car, it will probably be considered only a minor inconvenience in the end.

San Diego County Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) employees have been charged with accepting bribes for issuing driver’s licenses. The FBI arrested and charged several people for accepting or giving the bribes. The allegations are that people were given driver’s licenses without taking the test or who had failed the driving test. People paid $2,500 to $3,000 for a commercial license and $400 to $500 for standard license. Four DMV employees have been charged with conspiracy to commit bribery and produce unauthorized identification documents, along with 21 other suspects. Authorities were especially concerned about the unqualified drivers that paid for the commercial licenses. Those drivers are allowed to drive vehicles that tow multiple trailers and move hazardous materials.

To learn more you can watch San Diego’s 10News.com video coverage here. 

Criminal Law Updates Law Offices of Orange County Defense Attorney William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636.

Related Articles

• DMV bribery ring: 21 people charged in California (abclocal.go.com)

AB 576- Agencies will be identified as “victims” of graffiti vandalism. This gives the agency eligibility to seek restitution from those convicted.

SB 492- Raises fines and jail time for registered gang members loitering near a school within 72 hours of being told to leave.

SB 135 chopping off a cow’s tail is considered a misdemeanor and can only be done when medically relevant.