People v. McGroder
| Decision Date | 30 April 1975 |
| Citation | 81 Misc.2d 1081,367 N.Y.S.2d 714 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Eugene B. McGRODER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Town Court |
This case raises the issue of the right of the police to take a blood test from an unconscious defendant. Defendant has moved to suppress the results of the blood test on the grounds that his consent was never given.
The facts are not in dispute. The officer came upon a three car accident. He opened the door of the defendant's car (the last of the three) and smelled liquor. The defendant was unconscious and never gained consciousness until some time after the blood test in question was taken. The officer called an ambulance and told the attendants to make sure the defendant was kept at the hospital until after a blood test could be taken. The officer arrived at the hospital about one half hour after the accident and signed the necessary forms authorizing the blood test. At the same time he filled out the uniform traffic ticket charging the defendant with driving while intoxicated. The blood test was shortly thereafter taken. The defendant seeks to suppress the results of that blood test.
The threshold question is whether or not an unconscious defendant can be arrested. § 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law restricts blood tests to those taken after an arrest. The defendant contends that since he was unconscious, a valid arrest could not be made, as he could not be advised of the facts of the arrest as required by § 140.35 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The Court of Appeals has ruled that the obligation to advise the defendant of the fact and cause of his arrest, as prescribed by said § 140.35 are not jurisdictional. Thus, in the cases of Squadrito v. Griebsch (1 N.Y.2d 471, 154 N.Y.S.2d 37, 136 N.E.2d 504), and People v. Coffey (12 N.Y.2d 443, 240 N.Y.S.2d 721, 191 N.E.2d 263), the Court of Appeals found that when verbal instruction as to the fact and cause of arrest were meaningless, such statements were not essential. In the case at bar, the defendant was unconscious. Verbal statements would have been entirely meaningless. The Court holds that they were not essential to an arrest in this situation.
An arrest is determined by conduct that occurs. As stated in People v. Cantor (36 N.Y.2d 106, 111, 365 N.Y.S.2d 509, 515, 324 N.E.2d 872, 876) '(w) henever an individual is physically or constructively detained by virtue of a significant interruption of his liberty of movement as a result of police action, that individual has been seized . . .' In the case at bar, the defendant was not free to leave the hospital. His liberty had been restrained by the action of the police officer, and he was under arrest.
The second aspect is whether or not the defendant refused to consent to a blood test. Under the statute (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194) a defendant may refuse to have his blood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Curran
...position on this appeal, the trial court correctly assumed that an unconscious person can be placed under arrest (People v. McGroder, 81 Misc.2d 1081, 367 N.Y.S.2d 714; cf. People v. Kates, 53 N.Y.2d 591, 444 N.Y.S.2d 446, 428 N.E.2d 852). Once a driver of a motor vehicle is arrested, the a......
-
People v. Kelty
...Vehicle and Traffic Law requires a refusal by a defendant. The legislation does not require an affirmative consent. (People v. McGroder, 81 Misc.2d 1081, 367 N.Y.S.2d 714). In that case the Court accepted a blood test taken from an unconscious In a hearing such as this, the People have to s......