By Kimberly Torres
WOODLAND, CA – The defense questioned the legality of consent after a man here in Yolo County Superior Court this week maintained he was coerced into having his blood drawn after two police officers refused to let him use the restroom even after he asked several times.
The man was arrested on May 4, 2021 for allegedly driving under the influence.
The man said he was taken into police custody at the West Sacramento pre-booking area. There, the man who was arrested was asked by West Sacramento Police Officer Nolan Nagle to “obtain an evidentiary sample, in this case, it would be blood.”
The man in custody refused to allow blood to be drawn, but said he was open to giving a urine sample as well as other alternatives.
Officer Nagle said he explained to the accused that the refusal of the blood draw could lead to not only legal problems, but also a warrant that would waive that right.
The body camera footage of Officer Nagle was played during this preliminary hearing. In the footage, a loud discussion between Officer Nagle and the man in custody can be heard where he is refusing to have blood taken, noting he “would rather you put a gun to my head”
To which Officer Nagle responded, on the footage, “That’s a little extreme.”
There was quite a bit of back and forth between both parties, according to the footage, but it appears the man in custody denied Officer Nagle’s request for consent to draw his blood seven times.
While Officer Nagle was handling the paperwork to request a warrant, the man in custody asked to use the restroom for the first time.
To which Officer Nagle responded, “After,” referring to after the blood is drawn.
After more back-and-forth discussion, Officer Nagle squats down to eye level with the man in custody and asks him if there “is anything I can say or do to get you to consent to the blood draw? Or are you going to force us to get a warrant?”
The man in custody then responded, “Yea, put a gun to my head”
Then the man in custody asked to use the restroom again for the third time.
To which Officer Nagle stated, “No, because I have all this paperwork to do.” He was referring to the warrant along with police reports and other documents.
As a final attempt to obtain consent, Officer Nagle informed the man in custody that he would be taking away his driver’s license. Officer Nagle claimed the man’s refusal of consent would be the reason he would have to drive with a temporary slip.
The man in custody replied that he did not want to “deal with the DMV” for unstated reasons.
After about an hour and 20 minutes, the man in custody finally agreed to have blood drawn for the evidentiary sample.
And, only then was the man in custody was then allowed to use the restroom.
In the police report, Officer Nagle wrote that the blood that was drawn was obtained via warrant.
Officer Nagle said he never officially applied for the warrant.
Judge Sonia Cortes denied the motion to suppress, based on the totality of circumstances that, on a technicality, the man who was in custody at the time did consent to the blood draw.
The trial-setting conference will be held on April 18.
This is coercion plain and simple to force the suspect to consent to the blood draw. It’s not a technicality. The results of the blood test should have ruled inadmissible in court. Officer Nagle should have also been sanctioned by Cortes.