In People v. McHugh (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 202, a defendant again argued that blood drawn by a phlebotomist should be suppressed. In that case, the blood was drawn involuntarily after the defendant refused to either take a breathalyzer test or voluntarily provide a blood sample. (Id. at p. 207.) The McHugh court presumed that San Diego law enforcement agencies deliberately and systematically used phlebotomists in violation of Vehicle Code section 23158. (McHugh, at p. 211, fn. 7.) Nonetheless, Division One of this court again found that violation of the statute did not require suppression of the blood evidence. The court stated: "McHugh argues, however, that when a law enforcement agency deliberately and systematically violates a state statute governing the collection of evidence, a court may order the evidence suppressed. McHugh cites no pertinent authority supporting this contention, and his argument is contrary to the Supreme Court's analysis in People v. McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, holding that an arrest otherwise reasonable under the Fourth Amendment does not become unreasonable for purposes of the exclusionary rule merely because it was effected in violation of a state statutory requirement. " (Id. at p. 214.)