Ross v. Department of Motor Vehicles

In Ross v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1990) 219 Cal. App. 3d 398, Ross was arrested and taken to jail where he was given his choice of chemical tests. (219 Cal. App. 3d at p. 400.) Ross chose the blood test. (Ibid.) When the technician arrived, he was wearing Levi's, a wrinkled shirt, and a plaid coat. (Ibid.) He had a disheveled appearance and appeared to have just gotten out of bed. (Ibid.) Alarmed by the technician's appearance, Ross asked for identification. (Ibid.) The officer responded the technician was not required to show identification and offered Ross a breath or urine test. (Ibid.) Ross refused this offer and told the officer "I'll take a test, a blood test, I want to see his I.D. He saw mine, now I want to see his. Your not going to stick a needle in my arm." (Ibid.) Rejecting the DMV's argument this constituted a refusal, the appellate court stated: "Recent decisions have consistently held submission to a test may not be conditioned on demands by the arrestee." (Ross, supra, 219 Cal. App. 3d at p. 401.) However, the "Legislature has specifically provided an arrestee is entitled to have blood drawn by only licensed, qualified individuals in a medically approved manner. Therefore, the condition is one imposed by statute and merely invoked by the arrestee." (Id. at p. 402.) The Ross court stated: "Once he questioned the identity of the individual, Ross was entitled to assurances he was what he purported to be--a person qualified by statute to draw blood in a proper manner." (Id. at p. 402.) "The request that the technician produce identification was sufficient to apprise the officer that Ross questioned his identity and gave the officer a reasonable method of meeting his objection." (Id. at p. 403.) "Expecting one who is acting in an official capacity to produce proper identification is neither novel nor burdensome. Where that person intends to intrude into the body with a needle, it is not only reasonable, but prudent to require identifying information clearly displayed." (Ibid.) The court concluded Ross's invocation of this right was not a conditional refusal. (Id. at pp. 402-403.)