PEOPLE v. THOMPSON
Filed 6/1/06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
)
v. )
Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 1106282
_______________________________________ )
Story Continue from Part I ……….
In any event, none of defendant's arguments is responsive to the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol--or to claim to have done so--or when the suspect evades police capture until he or she is no longer intoxicated. Numerous courts have recognized this possibility as an additional reason supporting a finding of exigent circumstances in DUI cases. (Welsh, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 763 (dis. opn. of White, J.); State v. Lovig (Iowa 2004) 675 N.W.2d 557, 566 & fn. 2; State v. Legg, supra, 633 N.W.2d at pp. 772-773; State v. Seamans, supra, 2005 Me. Super. LEXIS 105, *11, fn. 3; State v. Paul, supra, 548 N.W.2d at p. 267; City of Kirksville v. Guffey, supra, 740 S.W.2d at p. 229; People v. Odenweller, supra, 527 N.Y.S.2d at p. 129; Stark v. N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (N.Y.App.Div. 1984) 483 N.Y.S.2d 824, 826-827, affd. (N.Y. 1985) 492 N.Y.S.2d 8, 9; City of Orem v. Henrie, supra, 868 P.2d at p. 1393; State v. Komoto, supra, 697 P.2d at p. 1033.) In this case, the corruption of evidence was not merely a theoretical possibility. The officers had good reason to believe that defendant, who had attempted to flee out the back door upon learning of their presence, would escape again or otherwise act to conceal his intoxication if given the opportunity. (See People v. Murphy (2005) 37 Cal.4th 490, 500.) Time was of the essence here.
In holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry here, we need not decide--and do not hold--that the police may enter a home without a warrant to effect an arrest of a DUI suspect in every case. We hold merely that the police conduct here, taking into account all of the circumstances, was reasonable--with reasonableness measured as â€
