People v. Toure

31 Citing cases

  1. People v. Benavidez

    No. D074582 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Instead, the court looks to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether law enforcement faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant. (People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1103 (Toure), citing McNeely, supra, at p. 149.) The relevant factors in determining whether a warrantless search is reasonable include the practical problems of obtaining a warrant within a timeframe that still preserves the opportunity to obtain reliable evidence.

  2. People v. Castro

    D066771 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 8, 2015)

    The court looks to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether law enforcement faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant. (People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1103 (Toure), citing McNeely, supra, at p. 1559.) The relevant factors in determining whether a warrantless search is reasonable include the practical problems of obtaining a warrant within a timeframe that still preserves the opportunity to obtain reliable evidence.

  3. People v. Meza

    A147188 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 18, 2018)

    But if this was not possible, then Officer Cruz could and should have enlisted assistance from another police officer. The forensic blood draw in this case did not occur until two hours after the accident, so if Officer Cruz and her colleagues had used diligent efforts to prepare and submit a brief warrant application, we have every reason to believe that they would have procured a warrant without causing any delay in the blood draw. (Cf. People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1104-1105 (Toure) [violent defendant requiring physical restraints, and delays in obtaining warrants after court closings].) Had the officers tried to get a timely warrant but failed, then the People would have evidence to explain that failure, and our assessment of the totality of the circumstances would necessarily be different.

  4. People v. Hunter

    No. D082143 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 29, 2024)

    "[I]t is well settled that a defendant may be convicted of both driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more" under section 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b). (People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1106 (Toure).)

  5. People v. Rudd

    C087595 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2019)

    The Hertzig court held that as in Rouser, the defendant "violated a provision of the Penal Code by the solitary act of possessing the proscribed property." (Hertzig, at p. 403; see also People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1105-1106 [reasoning that a defendant may be convicted under Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivisions (a) and (b) for both driving under the influence and driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more but may only be sentenced under one subdivision where both charges relate to the same act of driving].) Similarly, in People v. Manfredi, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at pages 633-634, the court reasoned that section 311.11's criminalization of the possession of "any matter" suggested a legislative intent to proscribe a broad course of conduct involving multiple pornographic images on multiple devices.

  6. People v. Panasian

    No. B281667 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019)

    [¶] To determine whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant, the court looks to the totality of the circumstances." (People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1103; Missouri v. McNeely (2013) 569 U.S. 141, 148-156.) In People v. Toure, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, a case with facts similar to those before us, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, concluding the "nonconsensual warrantless blood draw was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances."

  7. People v. Haulcy

    No. D072701 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    No hard and fast rule was created by the court. (McNeely, supra, 569 U.S. at p. 158.) In People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1103-1105, Division Two of our court addressed exigent circumstances arising from a traffic accident, its investigation and the problems with getting the defendant secured before obtaining a blood sample. The court found the problems facing police in the processing of the suspect made it reasonable for police to obtain a blood sample without first seeking a warrant.

  8. People v. Haulcy

    D072701 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2018)

    No hard and fast rule was created by the court. (McNeely, supra, 569 U.S. at p. 158.) In People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1103-1105, Division Two of our court addressed exigent circumstances arising from a traffic accident, its investigation and the problems with getting the defendant secured before obtaining a blood sample. The court found the problems facing police in the processing of the suspect made it reasonable for police to obtain a blood sample without first seeking a warrant.

  9. People v. Ascencio

    No. D066806 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015)

    The relevant factors in determining whether a warrantless search is reasonable, including the practical problems of obtaining a warrant within a timeframe that still preserves the opportunity to obtain reliable evidence, will no doubt vary depending upon the circumstances in the case." (Id. at p. 1568; see People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1104-1105 [exigency existed based on factors in addition to natural dissipation of alcohol in blood].) The trial court in the McNeely case found there were no exigent circumstances because the officer had failed to identify any factors that would suggest he faced an emergency or unusual delay in securing a warrant, and his testimony supported that a prosecutor and judge were readily available to issue a warrant.

  10. People v. Reyes

    No. D083326 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024)

    The trial court correctly found section 654 applied because "both charges relate to the same act of driving, so the term on one of the counts was required to be stayed." (People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1106.) But after the trial court imposed a sentence on count 1, it stayed count 2 without imposing a sentence.