skip to Main Content
Name: Manriquez v. Gourley
Case #: D039757
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/31/2003
Subsequent History: none
Summary

In an appeal from an administrative DMV hearing, the Court of Appeal agreed that the arresting officer complied with the 15-minute period of continuous observation requirement before administering a breath test. The CHP officer stopped appellant at 12:01 a.m. and concluded he was drunk. He transported him to jail, observing appellant in the rearview mirror, and took a breath test from him at 12:54 a.m. and 12:59 a.m. once at the station. During the ensuing time, he arrested appellant, put him in the patrol car, waited for the tow truck, and talked to appellant while he did paperwork on the arrest. The Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether the officer’s observations of appellant complied with DMV regulation 1219.3 which requires “continuous observation” for at least 15 minutes prior to collection of a breath sample. It concluded that continuous observation does not mean uninterrupted, direct, unbroken eye contact. Appellant was confined, he was engaged in conversation, and the officer used all his senses to listen and observe appellant within the requisite period.