### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00532-CR
Gilber to Alva rez

, Jr., Appel

lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW OF

COMAL COUNTY NO. 2000CR0211, HONORABLE BRENDA CHAPMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appe llantGil

berto Alv arez, Jr. entered a nolo conten dere ple a and was con vi cte d of t he misdemeano r o ffense o f op er at ing a mot or vehicle in a pu blic p lac e w hile i

ntoxi cated. SeeTe x. Pen. Code Ann . § 49.04(a) (West Supp. 2002). Acceptin g and f oll owing a ple a b argai n ag re em en t, t he t rial co ur t asse ssed app ellant’ s pu nishment a t co nfinement in t he co unt y jail for nine t y da ys , pr oba t ed fo r o ne yea r , an d a fine o f $8 00 . I n his so le point of error, appell ant asserts that the trial courterred

i n de ny i ng h i s m otion to suppre ss bl ood test evi den ce b eca use the b l ood test resu

l ts were un l aw f ul l y ob tai n ed i n v i ol ati on of h i s F our th A men dm en t ri gh ts. W e wi l l

af f i rm th e j udgm

en t. At t he hea ring o n t he mot ion t o s upp re ss, no t es t im ony, ex hi bi ts, docum

en tary evi dence, sti pul ati ons, or othe

r evi den ce was of f ered or a dm i tted. T he he ar ing r ec o r d s ho ws o nly a coll oquy between coun sel and the tria l courtdiscu ssing law appl icab le to facts assumed

bu t no t in1 Co un se l a skedthe t rial court to tak e judici al notice o f a subpoena, issued at t he St ate ’s re qu est, re qui

ri n g th e cus todi an of th e h osp i tal re cor dsto pro duce t he reco rd o f appellant’s bloo d test re su l t. Cou nsel also ask ed t he cou rt to tak e judici al notice o f the St ate ’s n oti ce to appella

nt’s counsel of the fili ng of the hospital records, au the nti ca ted by the af f i da vi t of t he cu st od ian of t he r eco rd s and t he State ’s

i nte nti on to off er the se d ocum en ts i n evi den ce. These docum

ents are i n the cl erk’s record, but wer e not off

ered or a dm i tted i n evi den ce. “ Judi cial noti ce” i s “ [a] court’ s ac ceptan

ce, fo r purposes of conven

ie nce an d without requiri

ng a party’ s proof, of a well-kn own and ind isp ut ab le f ac t” such as

“water freeze s at 32 degrees Fah renhei t.” Blacks Law Dictionary 851 (7 th ed . 1999) . “The theory

of j udi cial noti ce is tha

t a f act we l l know n b y al l re a so nably intelligent peo ple in t he com m un i ty or its exi stence is so easi ly determi nab le with c ertainty

from sources considered reli

abl e, it wou l d n ot be good sens e to r equi

re forma l proof.” Hollow

ayv. State , 6 66 S .W. 2d 1 04, 108 (T ex. Crim . App. 1984). “Of

course a trial

court ma y tak e j udi ci al n oti ce of i ts ow n or der s, r eco rd s, a nd j udgm en ts.” Wilso n v. State , 67 7 S .W .2d 51 8, 5 23 (Tex . C ri

m . A pp . 19 84 ). H owev er , the f ac ts ne ces sary to support a mo t io n t o su pp r es s e vid en ce ar e n o t fac t s t ha t a t r ial c o ur t ca n ju dic ially notice. The r ec ord

m us t con tai n ev i den ce to s uppor

t a c l ai m made i n a m oti on to suppres s. See Gonzale s v. State , 977 S.W .2d 189 , 189-9 1 (Tex . App.—A usti n 19 98, pet. ref

’d). 2 evi dence. 1 Fr

om the record, we cann

ot ide ntif y the frui ts of the alle ged unl

awful search an d sei zure; because we are unab le

to ide ntif y the frui ts of the alle ged search a nd s ei zure, we

ar e u n ab l e to det er mine from the record t hat the alle ged fruit s we re so mehow use d by the State . See Gonzales v. State , 977 S.W.2d 189, 189-91 (T ex. App.—A usti n 19 98, pet. ref

’d). Th e rec ord i n th i s ca se is m

ore deficient t han t he r eco rd in Gonzales . We are not aut horize d t o s pec ulat e o n what evidenc e t he record might ha ve sho wn. “[I ]f it is no t clear fro m the t est imony and exhibit s wha t ‘t he frui ts’ are, then the appel la te court need notaddre ss the meri ts of the cl ai m . Li ke wi se , i f the f rui ts h ave n ot ‘s omeh owbeen use d’ b y the State , then

the a ppel l ate court ne ed n ot addres s the

meri ts of th e cl ai m .” Gonzalesv. State , 96 6 S. W.2d 521 , 52 4 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 98) ; see McG lynn v. Stat

e , 704 S.W.2d 18, 20-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 82 ) . On t he r ec o r d b efo r e u s, it ha s n ot been shown that the tri

al court abused its di scretion in den yi ng appell ant’s motion to suppress.3 Even if we could consi

der the facts n

ot proved but those assumed dur ing t he su ppr es si on hea ring and o n ap pe al, ap pe llant ’s p o int o f erro r is w ithout meri

t. The facts assum

ed were th at a pp el l an t wa s i n v ol v ed i n an au tom ob i l e c oll i si

on an d ta ken to a h osp i tal f ort he t re at ment of hi s i nj uries . At the hospital , two separate blood sampl es were drawn f rom appel

la n t. The fi rst sa mple was drawn wi

thout the appella

nt’s consen

t at the request of a

New B raun

f el s pol i ce of f i cer. Thatbl ood sam plewas anal

yz ed by the Texas Departm

ent of Saf ety Cri me Laboratory. The trial cou rt suppr es se d ev i den ce

of th e r es ul t of th at te st. Howev er, a se co nd sa mple of a ppe llant’s blo od was dr awn a t t he ho spit al. Ap pellant sa ys in his brief tha t “[t ]his sa mple was dr awn fo r r ou t ine medical pu rp os es a nd wit h t he con sent of A pp el l an t. Dur ing t he co ur se o f tr eat ing Appe llant, t he hos pi tal tes ted tha t sa m ple f or al coh ol con ten t. Thi s test showed an al cohol content of approxi

ma tely 0.26, over t he l

egal limit of 0 .08.” The t rial court denied appellant’s mo t io n t o su pp r es s t he t es t r es ult o f t he blo o d s amp le dra wn f or me dic al pur po ses. Appe llant ar gue s t hat t he result of the t est made fo r med ical pur po ses s hou ld have been suppressed also because the State obtained the resul t o f this test “wi

thout fi rst securin

g ei ther appe l l an t’s c onse nt or a val

i d se arch warra nt.” Appellant’s co unse l, in arg ument on t he mot ion t o s upp re ss and in his br ief o n a pp ea l, recogniz es that t he f

acts in this ca se ar e q uit e s imi lar t o t hos e in State v. Hardy , 963 S.W.2d 516 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 7) . I n Hardy , the Court of Cri mi nal Appeals hel

d: We ex pre ss no op i ni on c on cer ni ng wh et he rso cie t y re co gn ize s a r ea so na ble ex pe ct at io n o f pr iva cy in me dic al r ec o r ds in general, or whether there are particular situ at ions in

whi ch such an ex pectation m

igh t exis t. We not e o nly that , g iven the authorities

dis cussed, wha

tever int er es t s s o cie t y may ha ve in saf eguardin g the priv acy of me dic al reco rd s, t he y a

re not suff

ic ie ntly strong t o require protect ion of bl ood-4

al coh ol test results from

tests t aken b

y h ospital personnel

sol el y f orme dic al

purposes af ter a traf f i c acc i den t. Id . at 527. Howev

er, appella nt argues t ha t a la t e S up r eme Co ur t “r ulin g d ire ct ly con trad i ctspri or Texasca se law co nc er ning a p er so n’s ex pe ct at io n o f pr iva cy inme dic al records.” He cites Ferguson
v. City of Charleston , 532 U. S. 67 ( 200 1) . T he fact s in Fergusonar e d ist ing uis ha ble fr o m Hardy and fro m this ca se. The issue in Fergusonwas fram ed by Justice St evens in the o pinion w rit t en fo r t he majo r it y: In thi s ca se, w e m

ust dec i de wh

ethe r a stat e hospita l’s

pe r fo r man ce o f a d iag no st ic test t o o bt ain evidence of a pat ient’s crim in al conduct for law en

forcem ent purposes is an un reasonabl e search i f

the p ati en

t has not con sen

ted to the proce dure. More na rr o wly, t he qu es t io n is w he t he rt he int er es t in us i ng the threa t of cr imi nal sanct ions to det er pr egna nt wo men fro m using cocai ne can j ustif y a dep arturefrom

the general rule t ha t an o fficia l no nc o nse nsu al s ea r ch is un co ns t it ut io na l if no t au t ho r ize d b y a v al i d w ar ra n t. Id . at 69. In Ferguson , staf f mem be rs of a state medical

traini ng hospi tal, concerned

abo ut t he increa sing use of c oc aine by wo men rec eiving pr enat al car e, deve lop ed a wr itt en po licy f or obt aining evi dence to pr ose cu

te the women

who bore chi

ldren that t ested positiv

e for drugs at bi

rth. Hospital representat iv

es, pol i ce , a n d l oca l of f i ci als dev i se d th e p roc ed ur es to be f oll owed. These procedures provided a p lan t o ide nt ify

and test pregnant patien

ts suspected of drug use wi thout their kn

owledge orconsent. The pl

an (1) requi

red that a chai

n of cus to dy b e f ollo wed when o bt aining and t est ing5

patients’ urin

e sam ple s, (2) con

tai n ed pol i ce pr oce du re s a n d c ri ter i a f or a rre sti n g p ati en ts who tested posi tiv e, an d (3) en courage d prose cution f

or drug of

f en ses and ch i l d ne gl ect. Id . at 70-73. The Supreme C ourt hel

d that a stat e h os pi

tal ’s perf orm an ce of di ag n ost i c te sts

to obtain e vi dence of a patien t’s crim in al conduct f

orlaw en fo r ce men t pu r

po se s w as an un r ea so na ble search if the patien

t had not con sen

ted to the proce dure. Id . at 84-85. The in terest in usi ng the threat of cri m i n al sa n cti on s to de ter preg

na nt women f rom us i ng coc ai ne coul d n ot j us ti f y a d ep artu re f rom t he general

rule that an

off ic ia l no nc o nse nsu al s ea r ch is u nc o nst it ut io na l if no t au t ho r ize d b y a va lid warra nt. Id . The fact s in Fergusonar e q ui te d i f f eren t f rom th e u n pr ov en b ut a ss um ed f ac ts in t his case. Under the record bef ore us, we need

not reach the m

erits of appe ll

ant’s cl ai m. However, ev

en if the a ssu med f acts w ere pr

o p erl y i n evi den ce f or our cons i derati

on, Hardy

would be contro ll in g. Appel la nt’s poin t o f error is

overruled. The j udgme

nt is aff irm ed.

Carl

E. F. Dall

y, Jus tice Be fo r e C hie f Ju st ice Abo us sie , Ju st ice s Y ea ke l an d D ally * Af fi rmed File d: March 28, 2002 Do No t Publis

h6 * Bef ore Carl E. F. Da l l y , Judg e (reti

red), C ourt of Cr

i m i na l Appeal s, si ttin g by ass i gnm en t. See Tex . Gov’ t Code A

nn . § 74.00 3(b ) (We st 1998 ).