No. PD-0077-15
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

STEVEN COLE, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from Gregg County

* * * * *
STATE’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS

* * * * *

LISA C. McMINN State Prosecuting Attorney Bar I.D. No.13803300
P.O. Box 13046 Austin, Texas 78711 information@spa.texas.gov 512/463-1660 (Telephone) 512/463-5724 (Fax) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED PD-0077-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 6/3/2015 5:25:30 PM Accepted 6/4/2015 8:07:40 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKNAMES OF ALL PARTI ES TO THE T RIAL CO URT’S J UDGMENT

App el la nt : Stev en Co le

. App el le e: The S ta te o f Tex as
. Co un se l for App el la nt at tri al : Ja m es R. (Rick ) Ha ga n, Att or ne y

at Law, P.O. Bo x 33 47 , Lon gv ie w, Texas 75 60 6- 33 47

. Co un se l fo r App el la nt on ap pe al : Ebb Mob le y, P.O. Bo x 23 09 , Lon gv ie w, Tex as 75 60 6.
Co un se l f o r th e St at e at tri al : Sta cey L. Bro w nl ee an d Mad is on Ho od , Ass is ta nt Dis tri ct Att or ne y s, 1 01 East Met hv in , Sui te 33 3, Lo ng vi ew, Texa s 7 56 01

. Co un se l fo r th e St at e on ap pe al : Z an Col so n Bro w n , Ass is ta nt Dis tri ct Att or ne y , 10 1 East Met hv in , Su it e 33 3, Lon gv ie w, Tex as , 75 60 1 , an d Li sa C. McMi nn , St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y , P.O. Box 13 04 6, Ca pi to l St at io n, Au st in , Texa s 7 87 11

.TABLE OF CONTENT S

INDEX OF AUT HORITIES..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii i
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF TH E CASE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ISSUES PR ESENTED.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1) Did the Cou rt of Appea ls co nduc t an in co rrec t ex ig ent ci rcumsta nces an al ys is w hen i t req ui red p ro of

of a “n ow or nev er” lev el of u rg ency ? 2) Wer e ex ig ent ci rcums t a n ces pres ent to dra w Appel la nt’s bl oo d w ith ou t a w ar ra nt w hen the ac ci dent cre a ted a su bs ta nti al peri od of del ay befo re bl oo d co ul d be dra w n, the of

fic er k new tha t it ty pi c a l l y t o o k 1- 1 1⁄2 ho urs to ob ta in w ar ra nt, an d he su sp ecte d the defe nda nt w as unde r the in flu ence of il le ga l drug s as op po se d to al co ho l, w hi ch ha s a pred ic ta bl e ra te o f el imina tio n? 3) Doe s a w ar ra ntl es s bl oo d dra w co nduc ted purs u a n t t o T E X . T R A N S P . C O D E § 7 24 .01 2( b) v io la te the Four th Am endment? 4) If a w ar ra n t l e s s bl oo d dra w co nduc ted purs ua nt to T E X . T R A N S . C O D E § 72 4.0 12 (b) vi ol at es the Four t h A me ndment, m us t tha t ev id ence be su ppre ss ed w hen, a t the t ime of th e se ar ch, the sta tute w as pres umptiv el y v al id an d tha t it di sp ens ed w ith the w ar ra nt re qui rement?

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SUMM ARY OF THE ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

I. Ex ig ency to jus tif

y w ar ra ntl es s bl oo d dra w ex amines w heth er ad di tio na l timeneed e d t o o bta in a w ar ra nt w ou ld “s ig ni fic an tly unde rmine the effi ca cy of the

bl oo d tes t.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
II
. E x i g e n t ci rcumsta nces w ere pres ent w hen po li ce k new it w ou ld ta k e 1- 1 1⁄2 ho urs to ob ta in a w ar ra nt, the ac ci dent ha d al rea dy crea ted co ns id era bl e del ay an d li m ite d the av ai la bi li ty of of fic ers to se ek a w ar r a n t , a n d the su sp ecte d in to xi ca nt w as a “ a c ou pl e o f hi ts of meth.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. The ac ci dent ca us ed a si gn ifi ca nt pe r i o d of del ay an d li m ite d the number of

po li ce o ffi cers av ai la bl e to see k a w ar ra nt.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. The in to xi ca nt in thi s ca se do es no t ha v e a co m m on ly k no w n el imina tio n ra te.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
II I. The ma n d a t o r y bl oo d dra w st at ute do es no t requ ir e a w ar ra nt an d is co ns tit uti on al
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A. The s ta tute dis pens es w ith the ne ed fo r a w ar ra nt

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B. Sta tuto ri ly dis pens in g w ith a w ar ra nt i s re as on ab le

.. . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1
. A d v a n ced co ns ent ha s been gi ve n in ex cha ng e fo r the dri vi ng pri vi le ge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2. The Sta te’s sp eci al need fo r s a f e r o ad s ou tw ei gh s a DWI ar res tee’ s l imited ex pect at io n o f pri va cy
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. The bl oo d dra w is a sp eci fic se ar ch in ci dent to ar res t f o r a na rro w cla ss of o ffen se s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Ex ig e n c y i s pres ent due to the di ss ip at io n of al co ho l an d the se ri ou sn es s o f the o ffen se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
IV. The remedy fo r a Four th Am endment vi ol at io n is no t ex cl us io n w hen po li ce co m pl ie d w ith a pres umptiv el y co ns tit uti on al st at ute an d ca se la w in terp reti ng it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

iA. Under Dav is , the Feder al ex cl us io na ry rul e do es n o t requ ir e

su ppre ss io n.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B. Bec au se the purp os e of Art. 38 .23 is to pro tect a su sp ect’ s ri gh ts fro m ov erze al ou s la w enfo rc e me n t , su ppre ss io n is no t requ ir ed w hen the vi ol at io n is no t ba se d o n m is co nduc t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

PRAYER FOR R ELIEF.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
CERTIFI CATE OF COMPLIANCE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

iiINDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

Cas es Ali ff v. St at e , 62 7 S .W .2d 16 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 82 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Becke nd am v. S ta te , 44 1 S .W .3d 29 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 14 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Beema n v . St at e , 86 S.W .3d 61 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Boy ki n v . St at e , 81 8 S .W .2d 78 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 91 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Uni te d S ta te s v. C

ha dw ic k , 43 3 U.S. 1 (19 77 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Ch av ez v. St at e , 9 S.W. 3d 8 17 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 00 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Ch eek v . Uni te d S ta te s , 49 8 U.S. 1 92 (19 91 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
New Y or k v. Cl as s , 47 5 U.S. 1 06 (19 86 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Co le v. St at e , __ S.W .3d

__ , No. 0 6- 13 -0 02 64 -CR ( Tex . App .–Tex ark an a, 20 14 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 6 , 11
Dan fo rt h v . Min ne so ta , 55 2 U.S. 2 64 (20 08 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 n St at e v. Dau gh er ty , 93 1 S .W .2d 26 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 96 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Dav is v. Uni te d S ta te s , 13 1 S . Ct. 2 41 9 (2 01 1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Dou ds v. St at e , 43 4 S .W .3d 84 2 (Te x Ap p.– Hou st on [14 Dis t.] 20 14 ).

. . . . . . .10 th
Boa rd of Edu ca ti on v. Ear ls , 53 6 U.S. 8 22 (20 02 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Ful le r v. S ta te , 82 9 S .W .2d 19 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 92 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Ari zo na v. Gan t , 55 6 U.S. 3 32 (20 09 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Heie n v . Nor th Ca ro li na , 13 5 S .Ct. 5 30 (20 14 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 n
iiiKa rn ev v. S ta te , 28 1 S .W .3d 42 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 09 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Ken tu cky v . Kin g , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 84 9 (2 01 1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Mar yl an d v . Kin g , 13 3 S . Ct. 1 95 8 (2 01 3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Ill in oi s v. K

ru ll , 48 0 U.S. 3 42 (19 87 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Uni te d S ta te s v. K

ni gh ts , 53 4 U.S. 1 12 (20 01 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Uni te d S ta te s v. Le on , 46 8 U.S. 8 97 (19 84 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Man ni ng v. St at e , 11 4 S .W .3d 92 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 -1 3
Mat a v . St at e , 46 S.W .3d 90 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 01 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Mis so ur i v. McN

eel y , 13 3 S .Ct. 1 55 2 (2 01 3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7- 10 , 12 , 20 -1 3
Mil es v. St at e , 24 1 S .W .3d 28 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 07 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 , 27
Uni te d S ta te s v. Mo nt oy a De Her na nd ez , 47 3 U.S. 5 31 (19 85 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Uni te d S ta te s v. Rei d , 92 9 F .2d 99 0 (4 th Cir . 19 91 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Rho de s v. S ta te , 24 0 S .W .3d 88 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 07 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Roc ha v. St at e , 16 S.W .3d 1 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 00 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 -2 7
Sa mso n v . Cal if

or ni a , 54 7 U.S. 8 43 (20 06 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Sc hme rb er

v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 4 U.S.7 57 (19 66 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , 22
Sk in ne r v. Ra il wa

y La bo r Exe cu ti ves ’ Ass oc ia ti on , 48 9 U.S. 6 02 (19 89 ).

. . . 17 -2 0
St at e v. Vil la rr ea l,
__ S.W .3d

__ No. PD-0 30 6- 14 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 14 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 1 4, 2 3
W el sh v. W is co ns in , 46 6 U.S. 7 40 (19 84 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 n
ivW

il so n v . St at e , 31 1 S .W . 3d 45 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 10 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Za p v . Uni te d S ta te s , 32 8 U.S. 6 24 (19 46 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Sta tute s
T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C . art . 38 .23

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 2 4, 2 6- 27
T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 7 24 .01 1.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 7 24 .01 2.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 1 0, 1 4- 15 , 19 -2 0, 2 3, 2 7
T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 7 24 .01 3.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 7 24 .01 6.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 7 24 .01 7.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 7 24 .01 9.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 7 24 .06 4.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Othe r ht tp :/ /www.ta bc .st at e.tx .us /p ub li cat io ns /b ro ch ur es /B ACCh art s.p df

. . . . . . . . . . 12 n

vNo. PD-0 07 7- 15 IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS
OF THE STAT E OF TEXA S
STEVEN COLE , App el la nt

v.
THE STAT E OF TEXA S, App el le e
* * * * *
STATE ’S BRI EF ON THE MERIT S

* * * * *
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS:
The Sta te Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y res pe ct fu ll y

pre se nt s i ts bri ef o n t he m eri ts

. STATE MENT REG ARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
The St at e di d no t or ig in al ly req ue st or al arg um en t, an d th e Co ur t di d no t gr an t
it

. Howev er, be cau se th e m ot io n fo r reh eari ng ha s be en gr an te d in St at e v. Vil la rr ea l,

__ S.W .3d

__ , No. PD-0 30 6- 14 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 14 ), an d be ca use thi s cas e pr es en ts

a n is su e th at ha s no t be en gr an te d– th e ap pl ic ab il it y of Art. 38 .23 –o ral ar g u men t

wou ld be he lp fu l. The refo re, t he Sta te req ue st s o ral arg um en t.

1STATE MENT OF TH E CASE

A ju r y co nv ic te d App el la nt of in to xi cat io n m an sl au gh te r, en ha nc ed by two
pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s, an d as se ss ed a li fe se nt en ce. The Co ur t of App eal s rev ers ed , ho l d i n g t ha t th e tri al co ur t erre d by ad m it ti ng bl oo d te st res ul ts ob ta in ed fro m a

no nc on se ns ua l, warra nt le ss bl oo d dr aw. C o l e v
. St at e , 45 4 S.W .3d 89 (Tex

. A pp. –T ex ark an a, 20 14 ). Thi s Co ur t gr an te d th e St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y ’s petit ion
fo r di sc ret io na ry rev ie w on Apr il 22 , 20 15

. The Co ur t gr an te d on e ex te ns io n of ti m e

un ti l J un e 5 , 20 15 , to fil e th e St at e’s br ie f.
IS SUES PRESE NTED 1) Did the Cou rt of Appea ls co nduc t an in co rrec t ex ig ent ci rcumsta nces an al ys is w hen i t req ui red p ro of

of a “n ow or nev er” lev el of u rg ency ? 2) Wer e ex ig ent ci rcumsta nces pres en t t o dra w Appel la nt’s bl oo d w ith ou t a w ar r an t w hen the ac ci dent crea ted a su bs ta nti al peri od of del ay befo re bl oo d co ul d b e d r a w n , t he of

fic er k new tha t it ty pi ca ll y to ok 1- 1 1⁄2 ho urs to ob ta in w ar ra nt, an d he su sp ecte d the defe nda nt w as unde r the in flu ence of il le ga l drug s as op po se d to al co ho l, w hi ch ha s a pred ic ta bl e ra te o f el imina tio n? 3) Doe s a w ar ra ntl es s bl oo d dra w co nduc ted purs ua nt to T E X . T R A N S P . C O D E § 7 24 .01 2( b) v io la te the Four th Am endment? 4) If a w ar ra ntl es s bl oo d dra w co nduc te d p u r su an t to T E X . T R A N S . C O D E § 72 4.0 12 (b) vi ol at es the Four t h A me ndment, m us t tha t ev id ence be su ppre ss ed w hen, a t the t ime of th e se ar ch, the sta tute w as pres umptiv el y v al id an d tha t it di sp ens ed w ith the w ar ra nt re qui rement?

2STATE MENT OF FACTS

At aro un d 10 :2 0 p.m ., App el la nt ran a red li gh t at th e in te rs ect io n of So ut h an d
So ut h Hig h St reet in do w n t o w n Lon gv ie w a t an es ti m at ed 11 0- 11 2 m il es pe r ho ur
. RR. III: 24 , 2 7- 32 , 11 5, 1 53 -5 4, 1 65 . He str uc k th e dr iv er’s si de of a pi ck up tru ck
in th e in te rs ect io n, ki ll in g th e dr iv er, be nd in g th e tru ck in to a ha lf- m oo n sh ap e, an d

cau si ng it to bu rs t in to fla m es . R R. III: 46 -4 7, 5 1- 53 , 14 3, 1 62 -6 5, 1 17 -1 9, 1 75 -7 6,
IV:4 7- 49

. The ve hi cl es cam e to res t ap pr ox im at el y 24 5 feet away fro m th e in i t ia l

po in t of im

pa ct

. RR. III: 12 1. Due to th e fir e an d de gr ee of im pa ct , th ere was a la rg e de br is fie ld , and tra ffi c was bl oc ke d i n a ll di rect io ns . RR. III: 37 -3 9, 1 14 -1 6.
A p p r ox im at el y fif

te en of fic ers wor ke d th e acci de nt sc en e, whi ch ha pp en e d

ne ar th e ti m e of sh ift ch an ge
. RR. III: 38 -3 9, 17 8- 79

. Offi cers fro m bo th th e ev en in g

an d m id ni gh t sh ift s were pr es en t. RR. III: 17 9. Tho se of fic ers were bl o c ki ng
in te rs ect io ns an d rero ut in g tra ffi c so th e acci de nt co ul d be in ve st ig at ed an d th e sc en e

ev en tu al ly cl eare d. RR. III: 17 9- 81

. The m in im um nu m be r o f o f f ic ers fo r th e

ev en in g s hi ft i s t hi rte en an d e le ve n fo r th e m id ni gh t s hi ft. RR . III: 17 8- 80 . All th e of fic ers at th e sc en e were perf or m in g nec es sa ry fu nc ti on s. RR . III: 18 3- 88 , 19 3- 94

. Offi cer Hig gi nb ot ha m te st ifi ed th at , al th ou gh jud ge s were on cal l to is su e warra nt s,
it wou ld ha ve ta ke n t w o o f f i c e r s an d 1- 11⁄2 ho ur s at be st ; th us , ob ta in in g a warra nt

wou ld no t ha ve be en feas ib le

. RR. III: 18 3- 85 , 19 0- 91

. W he n as ke d wha t he wou ld

3do if a warra nt was ne ces sa ry , Hig gi nb ot ha m rep li ed , “ You do wha t y ou ha ve to do ,”

an d “ we wou ld ha ve ha d to ta ke [] ti m e ou t of ev erythi ng el se to pr oc ur e on e.” RR.
III: 19 1. App el la nt was ta ke n to th e ho sp it al fo r ev al u a t i o n
. RR. III: 23 4. He
ad m it te d to ta ki ng “ a co up le of hi ts o f met h,” an d an of fic er ob se rv ed th at he was

“ twea ki ng ,” i

. e., m ak in g in vo lu nt ary bo di ly m ov em en ts

. RR. III: 87 , 92 , 22 1, 23 5.
He was arre st ed at th e ho sp it al at 11 :3 8 an d refu se d to vo lu nt ari ly pr ov id e a sp eci m en of hi s b lo od . RR. III: 22 3- 24 ; SX 9. Afte r Offi cer Wrig ht rel ay ed th is in fo rm at io n
to he r se rg ean t, she was gi ve n th e or de r to pr oc eed wit h th e m an da to ry bl oo d d raw,

an d App el la nt ’s b lo od was dra wn wi th ou t a war ran t at 12 :2 0 a .m
. RR. III: 22 3- 24 ;
SX 10

. The res ul t s r e v eal ed 0.2 m g/ L of am ph et am in e an d 0.2 3 m g/ L of

m et ha m ph et am in e, whi ch was de sc rib ed by th e to xo lo gi st as be in g at th e “ ve ry hi gh

en d of a th erap e u ti c ran ge ,” bu t a “ m od erat e do se ” fo r recr eat io na l us e th at co ul d

cau se in to xi cat io n. RR . IV: 2 0- 23 ; SX 1 3.
The tri al co ur t fo un d ex ig en t ci rc u m st an ces fo r th e warra nt le ss bl oo d dr aw,
st at in g:
Thi s cas e, y ou ha v e o n e of th e m os t m ajor in te rs ect io ns in Lon gv ie w, Tex as , sh ut do wn. You ha ve nu m ero us of fic ers on th e sc en e. W hi le th ere are ot he r o f

f i cers who co ul d as si st in so m e way s, th e le ad in ve st ig at or , th e pe rs on who ha s t he sp eci al iz ed tra in in g in or de r to do an acci de nt reco ns tru ct io n, an acci de nt in ve st ig at io n, is th e of fic er who ha s to rem ai n on th e sc en e
. S o t h e re are th os e ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces
. You ha ve fact or s th at le ad th at of fic er ha vi ng to rem ai n th ere. The re was

4a la rg e de br is fie l d ; f i re; ag ai n, a m ajor in te rs ect io n be in g in vo lv ed

. It was no t jus t a typic al li tt le DW I a r r e s t

. Seco nd ly, y ou al so ha ve th e de fen da nt cu rren tl y at th e ho sp it al be in g tra ns po rte d by EMS. The of fic ers al so ha ve to be co nc ern ed of whe th er he ’s gi ve n an y ad di ti on al
m ed ic at io ns , wha t hi s he al th an d sa fet y is

. So th ere are ot he r fact or s in vo lv ed , ot he r– th at do no t gi ve ti m e fo r a warra nt th at m ay be th ere in a reg ul ar DW I. Als o, th e ti m in g of al l to ge t th e sc en e c l e a red is an ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ce.
RR. III : 1 97 -9 8.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUME NT
The warra nt le ss bl oo d dr aw was jus ti fie d by ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces
. W he n th e

ex ig en cy at is su e is th e di ss ip at io n of al co h o l or dr ug s in th e bl oo ds tre am , th e
ap pl ic ab le st an da rd is n o t “n o w o r ne ve r” as it is fo r th e in te nt io na l de st ru ct io n of

ta ng ib le ev id en ce. The de gr ad at io n of th e pr ob at iv e v a l u e o f al co ho l an d dr ug

ev id en ce is a fact or in th e ex ig en cy an al y si s. Bas ed on th e s e v e r i ty o f th e acci de nt
in th is cas e– whi ch oc cu pi ed at le as t ha lf of th e co m bi ne d ev en in g an d m id ni gh t sh ift s of th e Lon gv ie w po li ce fo rce fo r ho ur s– an d an in to xi can t wit h an el im in at io n rat e th at
is no t co m

m on ly kn own , an of

fic er co ul d reas on ab ly be li ev e th at th e ad di ti on al 1- 11⁄2
ho ur s ne ed ed to ob ta in a warr a nt wou ld si gn ifi can tl y un de rm in e th e bl oo d te st ’s
effi cac y an d wou ld ha ve ta ke n two of fic ers away fro m th ei r du ti es at th e acci de nt

sc en e.
Alt ern at iv el y , T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 7 24 .01 2 di sp en se s with th e req ui rem en t

5of a warra nt

. The Fo ur th Am en dm en t req ui res on ly reas on ab le ne ss ; a se arch warra nt

or ex cep ti on is no t es se nt ia l fo r a se arch to be reas on ab le

. A bl oo d dr aw pu rs ua nt to
th e st at ut e is reas on ab le be cau se it in cl ud es co m po ne nt s o f f

ou r well -rec og ni zed

ex cep ti on s to th e warra nt req ui rem en t: co ns en t, sp eci al ne ed s, s e a r c h in ci de nt to

arre st , and ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces
. Eve n if a st at ut or y , warra nt le ss bl oo d dr aw vi ol at es t h e F o ur th Am en dm en t,

su pp res si on of th e ev id en ce is no t th e pr op er rem ed y un de r th e fed eral ex cl us io na ry

ru le or art . 3 8.2 3. The pu rp os e of bo th ex cl us io na ry

rul es is to pro te ct th e ri gh ts of

su sp ect s fro m ove rzea lo us la w en fo rcem en t. Tha t pu rp os e is no t se rv ed whe n of fic ers

un kn owi ng ly vi ol a t e t h e Fo ur th Am en dm en t whi le rel y in g on a pr es um pt iv el y

co ns ti tu ti on al st at ut e an d c as e la w in te rp ret in g i t.
ARGUMENT
I. Ex ig ency to jus tif

y w ar ra ntl es s bl oo d dra w ex amines w heth er ad di tio na l time need ed t o o b t a i n a w ar ra nt w ou ld “s ig ni fic an tly unde rmine the effi ca cy of the bl oo d tes t.”
Po li ce ne e d n ot ob ta in a warra nt whe re ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces wou ld m ak e do in g so im

pr ac t i c a l. Uni te d St at es v. Mon to ya De Her na nd ez , 47 3 U.S. 53 1, 55 3 (1 98 5)

. The Co ur t of App eal s no te d th at wa r r an tl es s se arch es ha ve be en up he ld

“ [w]here th ere are ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch po li ce act io n li te ral ly m us t be ‘ now

or ne ve r’ to pr es erv e th e ev id en ce of th e cri m e.” Co le , 45 4 S.W .3d at 98 , n.5

. (ci ta ti on

6om it te d)

. It co nc lu de d th at , be cau se App el la nt ’s bl oo d co ul d ha ve be en dr awn wit h

a warra nt th ree ho ur s and fo rty m in ut es aft er t he acci de nt , th e pe rio d of del ay “ fai ls

to reac h th e ‘now or ne ve r’ le ve l co nt em pl at ed by ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces pr eced en t.”
Id

. at 1 03

. Bu t no t al l de st ru ct io n of ev i d e nc e cas es in vo lv e a th reat of im m ed ia te
de st ru ct io n

. Se e Mis so ur i v. McNee ly , 13 3 S.Ct

. 15 52 , 15 61 (2 01 3) (“ The co nt ex t of
bl oo d te st in g is di ffer en t in cri ti cal res pe ct s fro m ot he r de st ru ct io n- of -ev id en ce cas es
in whi ch th e po li ce are tru ly co nf r o nt ed wit h a ‘now or ne ve r’ si tu at io n.” ). Tha t is
be cau se , un li ke a su sp ect in ph y si cal po ss es si on of e as il y di sp os ab le ev id en ce th at

can be de st ro y ed qu ic kl y , di ss ip at io n of a l c oh ol in th e bo dy oc cu rs au to no m ic al ly.
Id

. Se e al

so Ken tu cky v. Ki ng , 13 1 S

. C t

. 1 8 4 9 , 1 85 7 (2 01 1) (“ dr ug s m ay be eas il y de st ro y ed by fl u s h i n g t he m do wn a to il et or rin si ng th em do wn a dr ai n.” ). If “ no w

or ne ve r” were req ui red in ev ery cas e in vo lv in g th e po ss ib le de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce,

ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces co ul d n ev er b e p ro ve n i n a DW I.
In McNee ly , th e Co ur t refu se d to ho ld th at th e di ss ip at io n of a su bs ta nc e in th e bl oo ds tre am pr es en ts a “p er se ex ig en cy ... i n al l dr un k- dr iv in g cas es .” 13 3 S.Ct

. at
15 56

. In st ead , th e Co ur t he ld th at th e ex is te nc e of ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ce s m us t be
de te rm in ed on a cas e-b y -cas e ba si s, co ns id eri ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces

. Id

. Tha t fact th at al co ho l is na tu ral ly el im in at ed in th e bo dy wi ll no t di sp en s e w i t h t h e

7ne ed fo r a warra nt , if, fo r ex am pl e, th e de fen da nt is st op pe d fo r DW I in fro nt of a

co ur th ou se ful l o f jud ge s.
Bu t ex ig en cy can st i l l b e fo un d whe n di ss ip at io n of al co ho l or dr ug s in th e bl oo ds tre am is co m

bi ne d wit h th e pa ss ag e of ti m e or whe n it is reas on ab le to be li ev e

a warra nt can no t be ob ta in ed wit hi n a reas on ab le am ou nt of ti m e. “ The rel ev an t
in qu iry is whe th er, gi ve n th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces kn own to po li ce at the ti m e, it

wou ld be ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le fo r an of fic er to co nc lu de th at ta ki n g t h e ti m e

ne ces sa ry to ob ta in a warra nt be fo re dr awin g a bl oo d sa m pl e wou ld si gn ifi can tl y

un de rm in e th e effi cacy of a bl oo d- al co ho l te st .” Id

. at 15 61

. In ot he r wor ds , th e ris k

to th e ev id en ce ne ed no t ris e to t h e l e ve l of to ta l de st ru ct io n or el im in at io n. The
de gr ad at io n of th e su bs ta nc e is al so a fact or
. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t c a u t i o n ed , “ A
si gn ifi can t del ay in te st in g will ne ga ti ve ly affe ct th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e res ul ts .”
Id

. Ret ro gr ad e e x t r ap ol at io n of al co ho l is po ss ib le be cau se th e de gr ee of

a b s o r p ti on an d el im in at io n of al co ho l are rel at iv el y fix ed

. Bu t un kn ow n

va ria bl es –s uc h as whe n th e de fen da nt la st at e, an d whe n, ho w fas t, an d ho w m uc h he
dr an k– wil l affe ct th e eq ua ti on so th at th e de gr ee of in to xi cat io n at a gi ve n ti m e is le ss
cert a i n
. Mat a v. St at e , 46 S.W .3d 90 2, 90 8- 13 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 01 ). “ Test in g

ne arer in ti m e to th e ti m e of th e al le ge d of fen se in crea se s th e ab il it y to de te rm in e th e

8su bjec t’s offen se -ti m e BAC.” Id

. at 91 6. Bu t “ lo ng er in te rv al s m ay rai se qu es ti on s

ab ou t t he accu racy of th e cal cu la ti on .” McNee ly , 13 3 S .Ct. at 15 63

. In sh or t, ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex is t whe n th e pe r i o d of di ss ip at io n is

un kn own , o r it is kn own bu t th e su bs ta nc e wil l be el im in at ed or i ts pr ob at iv e va lu e si gn ifi can tl y

un de rm in ed du rin g t he ti m e req ui red to ob ta in a warra nt

. II
. Ex ig ent ci rcumst a n c e s w e r e pres ent w hen po li ce k new it w ou ld ta k e 1- 1 1⁄2 ho urs to ob ta in a w ar ra nt, the ac ci dent ha d al rea dy crea ted co ns id era bl e del ay an d li m ite d the av ai la bi li ty of o f f i c e r s t o se ek a w ar ra nt, an d the su sp ecte d in to xi ca nt w as a “ a c ou pl e o f hi ts of meth.”
McNee ly no te d th at “ sp eci al fact s,” li ke an acci de nt are no t ne ces sa ril y
req ui red , an d ex ig en cy can ari se in ev en an “ or di na ry tra ffi c st op .” Id

. at 15 68

. The
ab il it y to “ ob ta in a warra nt in an ex pe di ti on s way ” in a gi ve n cas e co ul d be affe ct ed by “ th e pr oc ed ur es in pl ace fo r ob ta in in g a warra nt or th e av ai la bi li ty of a
mag is tra te .” Id

. An ev al ua ti on of th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e of fic er’s be li e f t h a t

e x i g e nc y ex is te d ex am in es “ th e pr act ic al pr ob le m s of ob ta in in g a warra nt wit hi n a
ti m efra m e th at st il l p res erv es th e o pp or tu ni ty to o bt ai n re li ab le ev id en ce.” Id

. A. The ac ci dent ca us ed a s i g ni fic an t peri od of del ay an d li m ite d the number of

po li ce o ffi cers av ai la bl e to see k a w ar ra nt.
W he n so m et hi ng ou t of the or di na ry cau se s si gn ifi can t de la y , th e el im in at io n
rat e of th e su bs ta nc e be co mes i nc reas in gl y im po rta nt

. In th is cas e, two ho ur s ha d
al read y el ap se d fro m th e ti m e of th e acci de nt u nt il App el la nt ’s bl oo d was dr awn

9pu rs ua nt to T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 7 2 4.0 12 (b ). Gett in g a warra nt wou ld ha ve

rem ov ed two of

fic ers fro m th ei r du ti es at th e acci de nt sc en e an d ta ke n up to an ad di ti on al 1 1⁄2 ho ur s, fo r a to ta l de la y of 3 1⁄2 ho ur s. In Sc hme rb er v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 4
U.S.75 7, 77 0- 71 (1 96 6) , th e Su pr em e Co ur t fo un d ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces whe n,

“ Fu rth er de la y in or de r to se cu re a warra nt aft er th e ti m e sp en t in ve st ig at in g th e sc en e of th e acci de nt an d tra ns po rti n g th e in jure d su sp ect to th e ho sp it al to rece iv e

t reat m en t wou ld ha ve th reat en ed th e de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce. Tha t de te rm i n a t i o n 1

was ad op te d i n McNee ly . 13 3 S .Ct. at 15 63 (Dis si pa ti on “ m ay su pp or t a f

in di ng of

ex ig en cy in a sp eci fic cas e, as it di d i n Sc hme rb er .”)
The Fo ur te en th Co ur t of App eal s ha s he ld th at th e nu m be r of po li ce in vo lv ed
in th e in ve st ig at io n, th e ab il it y to pr oc es s a warra nt ap pl ic at io n du rin g th e
in ve st ig at io n, an d de la y c a u s ed by t he ti m e ne ed ed to in ve st ig at e is rel ev an t to th is
de te rm in at io n. Dou ds v. St at e , 4 3 4 S.W .3d 84 2, 85 3- 54 (Tex App .–Ho us to n [1 4 th
Dis t.] 20 14 , pe t. gr an te d)

. “ The St at e sh ou ld be res po ns ib le fo r as ki ng of fic ers who
ha nd le acci de nt s t o e x p l a i n th e de m an ds of a pa rti cu la r in ve st ig at io n th at m ad e it

Sc hme rb er

do es no t ex pl ic it ly set o ut ho w m uc h t im e el ap se d fr om

th e 1 acci de nt un ti l t he de fen da nt ’s bl oo d was dra wn, b ut it su gg es ts th e arr es t (a nd pe rh ap s t he de ci si on to dra w th e b lo od ) was m ad e wit hi n t wo h ou rs of t he acci de nt

. Id . at 7 69 (of

fic er ar riv ed at t he sce ne sh or tl y afer th e acc id en t, s m el le d al co ho l, an d o bs erv ed bl oo ds ho t wat ery ey es , th en saw h im at t he ho sp it al “ wit hi n two ho ur s” an d o bs erv ed th e sa m e sym pt om s)

. 10im

pr act ic al fo r po li ce to ob ta in a warra nt be fo re an y bl oo d al co ho l ev id en ce di ss ip at ed .” Id . at 8 54

. Th at is ex act ly wh at th e St at e di d he re. Offi cer Hig gi nb ot ha m ex pl ai ne d h i s acci de nt in v e s t i g a t io n an d th e ne ed fo r pe rs on ne l to cl os e of f tra ffi c at two m ajor
in te rs ect io ns
. RR. III: 17 8- 81

. App ro xi m at el y ha lf of th e Lon gv ie w po li ce fo rce on du ty du rin g th e ev en in g an d m id ni gh t sh ift s was at th e acci de nt sc en e, pe rfo rm in g

ne ces sa ry fu nc ti on s. RR. III: 3 8- 39 , 17 8- 79

. Yet th e Co ur t of App eal s ob se rv ed ,

“ The re is no in di cat io n th at of fic ers no t on th e sc en e were un av ai la bl e to he lp ob ta in

a warra nt .” C o l e , s l ip op . a t 21

. Thi s cri ti ci sm im pr op erl y fo cu se s on ev id en ce no t
in th e reco rd in st ead of ev id en ce th at is in th e reco rd

. In ad di ti on , un de r th e Co ur t of App eal s’ th eo ry , if th ere is ev en on e rem ai ni ng of fic er n o t a c t iv el y in vo lv ed in th e

cas e, th ere wil l ne ve r be ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces
. The ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex cep ti on
req ui res im

pr act ic al it y

in ob ta in in g a warra nt , no t i m po ss ib il it y
. Se e McNe el

y, 13 3
S.Ct

. at 15 61

. (“ W e do no t do ub t th at so m e ci rcu m st an ces wil l m ak e ob ta in in g a

warra nt im

pr act ic a l su ch th at th e di ss ip at io n of al co ho l fro m th e bl oo ds tre am wil l

su pp or t an ex ig en cy

jus ti fy in g a pro pe rly con du ct ed warran tl es s b lo od tes t.”)

. B. The in to xi ca nt in thi s ca s e do es no t ha ve a co m m on ly k no w n el imina tio n ra te.
In ad di ti on to th e su bs ta nt ia l de la y , th is cas e in vo lv ed m et ha m ph et am in e, no t

11al co ho l

. St reet dr ug s ha ve di ffer en t m et ho ds of in ge st io n wit h co rres po nd in gl y

di ffer en t rat es of ab so rp ti on
. The Co ur t of App eal s reco gn iz ed th e po ss ib il it y th at 2

m et ha m ph et am in e ha s a di ffer en t rat e of el im in at io n, bu t he ld , “ W it ho ut so m e
in di cat io n of whe n th e m et ha m ph et am in e ev i d e n c e wou ld be gi n to di ss ip at e, we

can no t con cl ud e th at su ch ev id en ce wo ul d l ik el y be de st ro y ed ev en if ob ta in in g th e

warra nt to o k a n e x t r a h o ur an d a ha lf.” Id

. at 18 n. 7. Bu t th e is su e is no t th e

ev id en ce be fo re th e tri al or ap pe ll at e co ur ts , b ut th e reas on ab le ne s s o f t he of fic er’s

act io ns ba se d on th e fact s kn own to hi m at th e ti m e. Se e McNee ly , 15 64 S.Ct

. at 15 64
n.7 (o ffi cers ’ de te rm in at io n of ex ig en cy m us t be as se ss ed “ fro m th e pe rs pe ct iv e of a

reas on ab le off

ic er o n t he sce ne , rat he r th an wit h t he 20 /2 0 v is io n o f hi nd si gh t.”)

. Alt ho ug h el im in at io n rat es o f a l co ho l m ay be wit hi n th e av erag e po li ce of fic er’s whe el ho us e, th e sa m e is no t tru e fo r co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es
. And as su m in g 3

an of fic er is fam il ia r wit h th at in fo rm at io n, ev en ex pe rts can no t al way s re a d i l y de te rm in e in to xi cat io n fro m to xi co lo gy re po rts

. F o r e xa m pl e co cai ne , m et ab ol iz es
in th e bo dy to fo rm be nz oylecg on in e. Man ni ng v. St at e , 11 4 S.W .3d 92 2, 92 4 (Tex

.

The to xi co lo gi st tes ti fie d t ha t t he rat e o f ab so rp ti on of m et ha m ph et am in e 2 de pe nd s o n t he m ean s o f in ge st io n. Th e fas te st is by inject io n, fo ll owe d b y sn or ti ng , sm ok in g, an d o ral ad m in is tra ti on . RR. IV: 1 5. Bu t t hi s ev id en ce was no t be fo re t he tri al co ur t at th e ti m e o f it s ru li ng

. ht tp :/ /www.ta bc .st at e.tx .us /p ub li cat io ns /b ro ch ur es /B ACCh art s.p df 3
12Cri m
. App

. 20 03 ). Tha t m et ab ol it e do es no t ne ces sa r i l y es ta bl is h in to xi cat io n or

pi np oi nt th e am ou nt co ns um ed or ti m e of co ns um pt io n. Id

. (wit ne ss te st ifi ed th at th e

am ou nt of m et ab ol it e in de fen da nt ’s bl oo d sh owe d on ly th at he ha d in ge st ed co cai ne
at so m e po in t, bu t it di d no t de m on st rat e in to xi cat io n.); Becke n d a m v
. St at e , 44 1
S.W .3d 29 5, 29 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 14 ) (ex pe rt wit ne ss te st ifi ed th at a la rg e am ou nt
of m et ab ol i t e i n t h e bl oo d is co ns is te nt wit h ei th er a la rg e do se or wit h ha bi tu al

co cai ne us e.). Here, th e to xo lo gi st te st ifi ed th at th e am ou nt of m et ha m ph et am in e in App el la nt ’s bl oo d “ co ul d” cau se in to xi cat io n. RR . IV: 2 0- 23

. A reas on ab le o f

f i c e r s h o ul d no t be ex pe ct ed to kn ow th e rat e of ab so rp ti on , el im in at io n, or m et ab ol iz at io n of st reet dr ug s of un kn own pu rit y an d met h o d of
ad m in is tra ti on
. In ad di ti on , po li ce in th is cas e were con cern ed ab ou t th e effe ct th at

ot he r m ed ic at io ns App el la nt m ig ht rece iv e at th e ho sp it al wou ld ha ve on th e ab il it y
to de te rm in e wha t was in hi s syste m at th e ti m e of th e acci de nt

. RR. III: 18 7. The se

un kn own fact or s m ak e it al l th e m or e reas on ab le to be li ev e th at th e ev id en ce wou ld
li ke ly be de st ro y ed , deg rad ed , or c om pr om is ed ha d t he off

ic er wai te d a n a dd it io na l
1 1⁄2 ho ur s t o g et a warra nt

. II I. The m an da to ry bl oo d dra w st at ute do es no t r e q u i r e a w ar ra nt an d is co ns tit uti on al
. The Co ur t of App eal s he ld th at th e warra nt le ss bl oo d dr aw was no t pe rm is si bl e

13un de r T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 72 4.0 12 (b ). Co le , 45 4 S.W .3d at 97 ( c i t i n g S t at e v.

Vil la rr ea l,

__ S.W .3d

__ No. PD-0 30 6- 14 , 20 14 ( Te x
. Cri m
. App

. 20 14 ) (reh eari ng
gr an te d) ). Sect io n 72 4.0 11 (a) of th e Tra n sp or ta ti on Co de , kn own as th e im pl ie d

co ns en t p ro vi si on , st at es : If a p ers on is arre st ed for an off en se ari si ng ou t o f act s all eg ed to ha ve be en co m m it te d whi le th e pe rs on was op erat in g a m ot or ve hi cl e in a pu bl ic pl ace ... t he pe rs on is de em ed to ha ve co ns en te d, su bjec t to th is ch ap te r, to su bm it to th e ta ki ng of on e or m or e sp eci m en s of th e pe rs on ’s br eat h or bl oo d fo r an al y si s to de t e r m in e th e al co ho l co nc en tra ti on or th e pr es en ce in th e pe rs o n ’s b o dy of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, dr ug , da ng ero us dru g, o r ot he r su bs ta nc e.
Su bs ect io n (b ) of Sect io n 72 4.0 12 of th e Tran sp or ta ti on Co de —t he m an da to ry bl oo d- dr aw pr ov is io n— st at es , in pa rt:
A pe ace of

fic er sh al l req ui re th e ta ki ng of a sp eci m en of th e pe rs on ’s br eat h or blo od un de r an y of th e fo ll owi ng cir cu m st an ces if th e of fic er arre st s th e pe rs on fo r an o f f e ns e un de r Ch ap te r 49 , Pen al Co de , in vo lv in g th e op erat io n of a m ot or ve hi cl e or a wate rcra ft an d th e pe rs on refu se s th e of

fic er’s req ue st to su bm it to th e ta ki ng of a sp eci m en vo lu nt ari ly: (1 ) th e pe rs on was th e op erat or of a m ot or ve hi cl e or a wat e r c r aft in vo lv ed in an acci de nt th at th e of fic er reas on ab ly be li ev es oc cu rred as a res ul t of th e of

fen s e a n d , at th e ti m e of th e arre st , th e of fic er reas on ab ly bel ie ve s t ha t as a di rect res ul t o f th e acc id en t: (A) an y in di vi du al ha s d ie d o r wil l d ie

... A. The s ta tute dis pens es w ith the ne ed fo r a w ar ra nt

. The m an da to ry bl oo d dr aw pr ov is io n im pl ic it ly di sp en se s wit h th e ne ed fo r a

14warra nt

. Sect io n 72 4.0 12 (b ) p r o v i de s th at un de r cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces , “ A pe ace

of fic er sh al l req ui re th e ta ki ng of a sp eci m en of th e pe rs on ’s br eat h or bl oo d....” On
th e ot he r ha nd , T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E § 72 4.0 13 st at es , “ Exc ep t as pr ov id ed by Sect io n
72 4.0 12 (b ), a sp eci m en m ay no t be tak en if a pe rs on refu se s t o s ub m it to th e ta ki ng of a sp eci m en de si gn at ed by a pe ace o f f i cer.” Tak en to ge th er, th es e pr ov is io ns
req ui re an of

fic er to fo rce t h e t a k i n g of bl oo d fro m a de fen da nt un de r cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces
. If th os e ci rcu m st an ces are no t pres en t, the of fic er m ay no t requ ire a
sp eci m en if th e pe rs on refu se s. Neit he r pr ov is io n en vi si on s th e po ss ib il it y of a se arch

warra nt

. Des pi te th e pr oh ib it io n ag ai ns t co m pe ll ed ta ki ng of a sp eci m en ou ts id e th e
pa ram et ers of su b s e c t i o n (b ), su ch a se iz ur e is un do ub te dl y pr op er wit h a se arch

warra nt

. And su bs ect io n (b ) req ui res th e of fic er t o ob ta in th e sp eci m en wit ho ut
reg ard to whe th er a m ag is tra te refu se s to is su e a se arch warra nt

. Fu rth erm or e, T E X

. T R A N S P

. C O D E §§ 72 4.0 17 (a), 72 4.1 6 (a), 72 4.0 19 (a), (d ) , an d 72 4.0 64 refe r to
sp eci m en s “ ta ke n at th e req ue st or or de r of a pe ace of fic e r
. ” ( e mp ha si s ad de d)

. A

se arch warran t i s t he “ or de r” o f a m ag is tra te , no t a p eace off ic er.
B. Sta tuto ri ly dis pens in g w ith a w ar ra nt i s re as on ab le

. W ar ra ntl es s blo od dr aws un de r Sect io n 72 4.0 12 (b ) fo ll owi ng an arre st fo r DW I

a r e r eas on ab le un de r Fo ur th Am en dm en t juri sp ru de nc e whe n vi ewed un de r a n
ag gr eg at e fram ewo rk en co m pa ss in g co m

po ne nt s of co ns en t, sp eci al ne ed s, se arch

15in ci de nt to arre st , and ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces
. Eve n if non e of th es e co m po ne nt s i s

a su ffi ci en t su bs ti tu te on it s own , th e to ta li ty of th es e co ns id erat io ns m ak e a st at ut or y

warra nt le ss bl oo d dr aw reas on ab le

. Se e, e.g
. , Uni te d St at es v. Kn ig ht s , 53 4 U.S. 11 2,
11 9- 22 (2 00 1) (s earc h of pr ob at io ne r reas on ab le ba se d on a kn own an d acce pt ed cart
bl an ch e pr ob at io n se arch c o n di ti on —wh ic h si gn ifi can tl y red uc ed pr iv acy

ex pe ct at io ns an d was ne ed ed to pr om ot e l e g i t i m at e st at e in te res ts —an d reas on ab le

su sp ic io n of wro ng do in g) ; Sa m s o n v
. C al if or ni a , 54 7 U.S. 84 3, 85 2- 56 (2 00 6) (s us pi ci on le ss se arch of pa ro l e e reas on ab le ba se d on a kn own an d acce pt ed cart
bl an ch e pa ro le se arch co nd it io n, whi ch el im in at ed an y ex pe ct at i o n of pr iv acy an d

se rv ed th e st at e’s su bs ta nt ia l i nt eres t o f pr ev en ti ng reci di vi sm ).

1. Adv an ced co ns ent ha s b e e n g iv en in ex cha ng e fo r the dri vi ng pri vi le ge . The st at ut e es ta bl is he s, un de r na rro wly t a il or ed ci rcu m st an ces , irr ev oc ab le

co ns en t to pr ov id e a bl oo d or br eat h sp eci m en
. The im pl ie d na tu re of th e co ns en t
de riv es fro m th e fact th at us e of th e St at e’s ro ad way s is a pr iv il eg e th at is co nd it io ne d

up on fo ll owi ng th e la ws, ru le s, an d reg ul at io ns th at go ve rn us ag e. App el la nt was on

no ti ce of th e te rm s of th e im p l i e d co ns en t m an da to ry bl oo d dr aw pr ov is io n

. Se e Ch eek v. Uni te d St at es , 49 8 U.S. 19 2, 19 9 (1 99 1) (ev ery pe rs on is pr es um ed to kn ow
th e la w). Bec au se App el la nt vo lu nt ari ly ch os e to us e pu bl ic ro ad way s, an y be la te d
ch al le ng e to irr ev oc ab il it y an d vo lu nt ari ne ss ba se d on po st -arr es t ev en ts as a m ean s
16to es cap e acco un ta bi li ty sh ou ld no t be en te rta in ed

. Cf. Rho de s v. St at e , 24 0 S.W .3d

88 2, 89 1 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 2 00 7) (th e do ct rin e of es to pp el by co nt ract ba rs a pa rty
who acce pt s th e be ne fit s of a co nt ract fro m co m pl ai ni ng ab ou t it s ex is te nc e, va li di ty,

or effe ct ); Boa rd of Edu ca ti on v. Ear ls , 53 6 U.S. 82 2, 82 8- 38 (2 00 2) (s an ct io ni ng a

m an da to ry dr ug -te st i ng po li cy fo r st ud en ts as a co nd it io n of pa rti ci pa ti on in

ex tra cu rri cu la r act iv it ie s) ; Za p v. Uni te d St at es , 32 8 U.S. 62 4, 62 8- 30 (1 946) (con se nt

to se arch pu rs ua nt to a co nt ract ua l ag r e e ment up he ld as a va li d waiv er of pr iv acy
in te res ts de sp it e th e su bjec t’s su bs eq ue nt pr o t es t at th e ti m e of th e se arch ), va cat ed

on ot he r gr ou nd s, 33 0 U.S. 80 0 (1 94 7)

. Alt ho ug h li cen se d dr iv ers do no t en te r in to

a co nt ract pe r se , th ei r im

pl ic it ag reem en t to co ns en t un de r co nd it io ns ou tl in ed in th e
st at ut e is gi ve n in ex ch an ge fo r th e pr iv il eg e o f d r i v i n g
. Tha t ag reem en t is

co nt ract ua l i n n at ur e ev en if n ot in fact

.

2
. T h e Sta te’s sp eci al need fo r sa fe ro ad s ou tw ei gh s a DW I ar res tee’ s l imited ex pect at io n o f pri va cy
. The pr in ci pl es be hi nd th e sp eci al ne ed s ex cep ti on su pp or t warra n t l e s s bl oo d
dr aws un de r §7 24 .01 2( b)

. Co ns id eri ng th e St at e’s in te res t in m ai nt ai ni ng sa fe ro ad s

an d w at er w ay s, m an da tor

y te sti ng unde r the na

rr owl y ta il or ed ci rcu m st an ces pr ov id ed
in §7 24 .01 2( b) st rik es an ap pr op ria te b a l a nc e wit h in di vi du al pr iv acy in te res ts

. In
Sk in ne r v. Rai lw ay La bo r Ex ecu ti ves ’Ass oc ia ti on , 48 9 U.S. 60 2, 65 2 (1 98 9) , th e
Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d a Fo ur th Am en dm en t ch al le ng e to rai lro ad reg ul at io ns
17m an da ti ng bl oo d an d ur in e te st in g of em pl oyees aft er c e r t a i n acci de nt s an d

au th or iz in g su ch tes ti ng of e m pl oyees wh o v io la te d c ert ai n s afet y rul es . The Cou rt

reco gn iz ed th at th e go ve rn m en t’s sp eci al ne ed s, ap art fro m la w e nf or cem en t, m ak e
th e “ warra nt an d pr ob ab le -cau se req ui rem en t im pr act ic a b l e
. ” Id

. at 61 9. The

go ve rn ment ha s a le gi ti m at e, no n- la w en fo rcem en t in te res t in reg ul at in g rai lro ad

em pl oyees en ga ge d in “ sa fet y -s en si ti ve ta sk s” to pr ev en t acci d e n t s th at cau se
pe rs on al in

jury an d pr op ert y da m ag e. Id

. at 62 0- 21

. The Co ur t th en de te rm in ed th at
th e reg ul at io ns sa ti sf

y th e pu rp os e of a warra nt

. Id

. at 62 2. Bec a u s e o f “ th e
st an da rd iz ed na tu re of th e te st s an d m in im al di sc ret io n ve st ed w ith tho se ch arg ed wit h
ad m in is te rin g th e pr og ram , th ere are vi rt u a l l y no fact s fo r a ne ut ral m ag is tra te to

ev al ua te .” Id

. And th e di sc ret io n us ed to de te rm in e whe th er to te st em pl oyees who
vi ol at ed th e ru le s is ba se d on l i m it ed , ob jecti ve cri te ria th at pr ev en t un br id le d
di sc ret io n. Id

. at 62 2 n.6

. Fu rth er, req ui rin g a warra nt m ay res ul t in th e de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce o f im

pa irment. Id . at 6 23 -2 4.
Nex t, th e Co ur t he ld th at th e reg ul at io ns are reas on ab le de sp it e th e ab se nc e of

an y in di vi du al iz ed su sp ic io n of im pa irment. Id

. at 62 4- 33

. The pr iv acy in te res ts
i mpli cat ed by th e te st s are m in im al an d em pl oyee ex pe ct at io n of pr iv ac y i s di m in is he d by pa rti ci pa ti on in a he av il y reg ul at ed in du st ry
. Id

. at 62 4- 27

. The Co ur t
al so ob se rv ed th at th e reg ul at io ns se rv e as an effe ct iv e de te rren t be cau se em pl oyees

18are aware th at th ey wil l be te st ed “ up on th e oc cu rren ce of a tri gg eri ng ev en t.” Id

. at

62 9- 30

. Unl ik e th e reg ul at io ns at is su e in Sk in ne r , Sect io n 72 4.0 12 (b ) do es no t
di sp en se wit h th e pr ob ab le cau se , in di vi du al iz ed su sp ic io n req ui rem en t. The

arre st in g of

fic er m us t ha ve p r o ba bl e cau se to be li ev e th at th e pe rs on co m m it te d an of fen se un de r Ch ap te r 49

. T E X

. T R A N S

. C O D E § 72 4.0 12 (b ). Sect io n 72 4.0 12 (b ) on ly
di sp en se s wit h th e warra nt req ui rem en t, an d th e va rio us in te res ts ex am in ed in Sk in ne r jus ti fy warran tl es s b lo od dra ws. Ope rat in g a ve hi cl e is a “ sa fet y -s en si ti ve ” act iv it y , as it be co m es “ le th al whe n
op erat ed ne gl ig en tl y by pe rs on s who are un de r th e in flu en ce of al co ho l or dr ug s.”
Sk in ne r , 48 9 U.S. at 62 8. So li k e th e go ve rn m en t’s in te res t in th e reg ul at io ns in
Sk in ne r , Tex as ha s a si gn ifi can t in te res t in en su rin g sa fet y by reg ul at in g th e co nd uc t
of th os e who us e it s pu b l i c r o a d s. Man da to ry dr aws , ad m in is tra ti ve li cen se

rev oc at io ns , and pe na lt ie s fo r dr iv in g wh il e in to xi cat ed , hav e a d et erre nt effe ct an d
th eref or e fu rth er s afet y
. Add it io na ll y , as in Sk in ne r , th e ci rcum sta nc es unde r w hich a dr aw is m an da to ry

are kn own to th e pu bl ic an d care fu ll y ci rcu m sc rib ed to li m it of fic er di sc ret io n ba se d

on ob jecti ve cri te ria

. The refo re, th e st at ut e su bs ta nt ia ll y fu lfi ll s t h e p u r po se s of a

warra nt —t o p r o t e ct ag ai ns t ran do m an d arb it rary in tru si on , li m it th e ob jecti ve an d

19sc op e of th e se arch , an d en su re ob jecti vi ty. See Sk in ne r , 48 9 U.S

. a t 6 22

. And as wit h th e rai lro ad reg ul at io ns , bl oo d te st res ul ts ob ta in ed un de r §7 24 .01 2( b) he lp th e
st at e “ ob ta in in va lu ab le in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e cau se s of m ajor acci de nt s
. . . a nd to

ta ke ap pr op ria te m eas ur es to saf eg ua rd th e g en eral pu bl ic .” Id

. at 6 30

. The pu bl ic in te res ts se rv ed by §7 24 .01 2( b) su bs ta nt ia ll y ou t w e i g h th e
in di vi du al pr iv acy in te res ts im pl ic at ed an d jus ti fy di sp en si ng wit h th e w a rran t
req ui rem en t. Alt ho ug h ev eryd a y d r i ve rs are no t as pe rv as iv el y reg ul at ed as

co m m erci al carr ie rs , t ha t di st in ct io n is of fs et by the st at ut e’s na rro w c irc um st an ces

an d p ro ba bl e cau se req ui rem en t.

3. T he bl oo d dra w is a sp eci fic se ar ch in ci dent to ar res t fo r a na rro w cla ss of o ffen se s.
Sect io n 72 4.0 12 (b ) m ay al so be reg ard ed as a co di fic at io n of th e se arch
in ci de nt to arre st ex cep ti on
. The ex ig en cy -b as ed co ns id erat io n of pr ev en ti ng th e lo ss

or de st ru ct io n o f ev id en ce i s no t ess en ti al to th e se arch in ci de nt to arre st ex cep ti on
. McNee ly , 13 3 S. Ct

. at 15 59 n.3 (“ W e ha ve reco gn iz ed a li m it ed cl as s of trad it io na l

ex cep ti on s to th e warra nt req ui rem en t th at ap pl y cat eg or ic al ly an d th us do no t req ui re

an as se ss m en t of whe th er th e po li cy jus ti fic at io ns un de rlyin g th e e x c e p t i on , whi ch

m ay in cl ud e e xi ge nc y -b as ed co ns id erat io ns , are im pl ic at ed in a pa rti cu la r cas e.”);
Uni te d St at es v. Ch ad

wi ck , 4 33 U.S. 1 , 1 4 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( s earc h in ci de nt to arre st m ay be

“ m ad e whe th er or no t th ere is pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at th e pe rs on arre st ed m ay
20ha ve a weap on or is ab ou t to de st ro y ev id en ce.”)

. Nev ert he le ss , th e st at ut e op erat es

to ob ta in ev id en ce of th e of fen se of arre st be fo re it is de st ro y ed by th e p r o c e s s of
di ss ip at io n i n t he bo dy.
Whi le a ve ni pu nc tu re bl oo d dr aw is “ an in va si on of bo di ly in t e g r i t y [ t h a t ]
im pl ic at es an in di vi du al ’s ‘m os t pe rs on al an d de ep -ro ot ed ex pe ct at io ns of pr iv acy,’ ”
McNee ly , 13 3 S.Ct

. at 15 58 , th os e in te res ts are co un te r e d by th e di m in is he d

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy ex pe rie nc ed by DW I arre st ees
. “ [A]uto m ob il es are jus ti fia bl y th e su bjec t of pe rv as iv e reg ul at io n b y t h e S t a t e
. Eve ry op erat or of a m ot or ve hi cl e

m us t ex pe ct th at th e St at e, in en fo rci ng it s reg ul at io ns , wil l in tru de to so m e ex te nt
up on th at op erat or ’s pr iv acy[.] ” New Y or k v. Cl as s , 47 5 U.S. 10 6, 11 3 (1 98 6)

. And

m os t im po rta nt ly, th e red uc ed ex pe ct at io n of pr iv a c y f o ll owi ng an arre st fo r DW I
fu rth er jus ti fie s th e warra nt le ss ta ki ng of a bl oo d sa m pl e to de te rm in e bl oo d al co ho l

co nt en t. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Reid , 9 29 F.2 d 99 0, 99 4 (4 th Ci r
. 19 91 ) (b reat ha lyzer

se arch in ci de nt to DW I arre st he ld to be co ns ti tu ti on al ).
In ad di ti on , th e su sp ect ’s pr iv acy rig ht s are pr ot ect ed by th e na rro wly ta il or ed

sc op e of th e se arch , whi ch is ti ed to th e arre st ab le of fen se an d su pp or te d by pr ob ab le

cau se
. Cf

. Ari zo na v. Gan t , 55 6 U.S. 33 2, 34 4, 35 1 (2 00 9) (a ve hi cl e se arch in ci de nt

to arre st is pe rm is si bl e whe n th ere is reas on to be li ev e th at ev id en ce of th e of fen se of

arre st co ul d be fo un d in th e ve hi cl e). The bl oo d sp eci m en is us ed on ly to de te rm in e

21a pe rs on ’s le ve l of in to xi cat io n an d do es no t le ad to th e di sc ov ery of in cri m in at in g

ev id en ce of pa st cri m es
. C o m p a r e wi th Mar

yl an d v. Ki ng , 13 3 S. Ct

. 19 58 , 19 80 (2 01 3) (DNA col le ct ed fro m arre st ees du rin g bo ok in g com pa red to un so lv ed -cri m e da ta ba se ).
4. E x i g e n cy is pres ent due to the di ss ip at io n of al co ho l an d the

se ri ou sn es s o f the o ffen se . Fi na ll y , §7 2 4 .01 2( b) in cl ud es an el em en t of ex ig en cy
. The di ss ip at io n of

ev id en ce of i n t o xi cat io n fro m th e bo dy, th ou gh it do es no t co ns ti tu te ex ig en t
ci rcu m st a n c e s i n e ve ry cas e, McNee ly , 13 3 S. Ct

. at 15 63 , is an im po rta nt

co ns id erat io n bec au se th e de la y in ob ta in in g a warra nt m ay res ul t in th e de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce. Se e S

ch mer be r , 38 4 U.S. at 77 0- 71

. 4

The ser io us ne ss of t he off en se pl ay s a r ol e in th e ex ig en cy de te rm in at io n. 4 Se e W el sh v. W is co ns in , 46 6 U.S. 7 40 , 74 9- 51 (19 84 ) (warr an tl es s en try int o a ho m e req ui res pro ba bl e cau se an d e xi ge nt cir cu m st an ces , and th e g rav it y of t he of fen se is a fact or in ev al ua ti ng ex ig en cy ). The C ou rt d id no t d raw a b rig ht li ne ru le be twee n m is de m ean or s an d fe lo ni es , bu t s ta te d, “ it is di ffi cu lt to co nc ei ve of a warra nt le ss ho m e arr es t t ha t wo ul d n ot be un reas on ab le un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t wh en th e u nd erl y in g o ffen se is ex tre m el y m in or .” It n ot ed th at “ th e pe na lt y th at m ay att ach to an y

pa rti cu la r of

fen se see m s t o p ro vi de th e cl eare st an d
m os t co ns is te nt in di cat io n o f th e St at e’s in te res t i n a rres ti ng in di vi du al s s us pe ct ed of co m m it ti ng th at off

en se .” Id . at 7 54 n.1 4. Th e sa m e rat io na le sh ou ld ap pl y to th e St at e’s in te res t i n s ecu rin g e vi de nc e to pro ve a pa rti cu la r of fen se . It g oe s wit ho ut sayin g t ha t Tex as pri or it iz es th e p ro se cu ti on of DWI, esp eci al ly in ca se s th at cau se de at h o r in

jury, are c om m it te d b y

rep eat off

en de rs , or p ot en ti al ly en da ng er ch il dr en
. 22IV. The remedy fo r a Four th Am endment vi ol at io n is no t ex cl us io n w hen po li ce

co m pl ie d w ith a pres umptiv el y co ns tit uti on al st at ute an d ca se la w in terp reti ng it.
The bl oo d d r a w i n th is cas e oc cu rred in 20 11 , be fo re an y co ur t he ld th at a

warra nt le ss bl oo d dr aw th at co m pl ie s wit h §7 24 .01 2( b) vi ol at es th e Fo ur th
Am en dm en t. At th e ti m e of th e se arch , th e st at ut e was pr es um pt iv el y co ns ti tu ti on al

. Se e Ka rn ev v. St at e , 28 1 S.W .3d 4 2 8 , 4 3 4 ( Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 09 ) (“ St at ut es are
pr es um ed to be co ns ti tu ti on al un ti l it is de te rm in ed ot he rwis e.”). Befo re Vil la rr ea l ,
t h is Co ur t ha d he ld th at th e st at ut e “ ex pa nd s on th e St at e’s se arch cap ab il it i e s b y
pr ov id in g a fram ewo rk fo r dr awin g DW I su sp ect s’ bl oo d in th e ab se nc e of a se arch

warra nt , ” an d “ en ab l[e s] [o ffi cers ] to dr aw bl oo d in cert ai n li m it ed ci rcu m st an ces

ev en wit ho ut a se arch warra nt .” Beema n v. St at e , 86 S.W .3d 61 3, 61 6 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 02 ). And pr io r to McNee ly , th is Co ur t hel d th at di ss ip at io n o f al co ho l fr om
th e bl oo d st ream al o n e co ns ti tu te s ex ig en cy whi ch , co m bi ne d wit h pr ob ab le cau se

an d a reas on ab le m et ho d of dr awin g bl oo d, do es no t req ui re a warra nt

. Ali ff v. St at e , 62 7 S.W .2d 16 6, 16 9- 70 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 82 ). The of fic er in th is cas e act ed in
rel ia nc e on a pr es um

pt iv el y co ns ti tu ti on al st at ut e th at req ui re d h im to co m pe l a
sp eci m en of App el la nt ’s br eat h or bl oo d an d on cas e la w th at he ld a warra nt was no t
req ui red

. So ev en if th e st at ut e or t h e o f f i cer’s act io ns in co m

pe ll in g a warra nt le ss bl oo d dr aw is fo un d t o b e u n c o n st it ut io na l, th e ev id en ce in th is cas e sh ou ld no t be

23su pp res se d u nd er ei th er t he Fed eral or Tex as ex cl us io na ry rul es
. A. Under Da v i

s , the Feder al ex cl us io na ry rul e do es no t requ ir e su ppre ss io n. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at th e go o d

- f ai th ex cep ti on to th e Fo ur th
Am en dm en t’s ex cl us io na ry ru le ap pl ie s whe n la w en fo rcem en t, at th e ti m e of th e

s e a r c h , act ed ob

jecti ve ly rea so na bl y by re lying on a st at ut e th at was la te r de cl a r e d

un co ns ti tu ti on al , Ill in oi s v. Kr ul l , 48 0 U.S. 34 2, 34 9- 57 (1 98 7) , or on bi nd in g jud ic ia l

pr eced en t th at was su bs eq ue nt ly ov erru le d. Dav is v. Uni te d St at es , 13 1 S. Ct

. 24 19 , 24 28 -3 4 (20 11 ). App lying th e ex cl us io na ry ru le to a se arch th at was pe rm is si bl e at
th e ti m e do es no t se rv e th e ru le ’s p u r p o s e o f de te rri ng po li ce m is co nd uc t. Id

. at
24 24 -2 8. Fo r pu rp os es of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, th e go od -fai th ex cep ti on pr ev en ts

su pp res si on
. B. Bec au se the pu rpo se of Ar t. 38 .23 is to pro tect a s us pect ’s rig hts fro m ov erze al ou s la w enfo rcement, s u p p r e ss io n is no t requ ir ed w hen the vi ol at io n is no t ba se d o n m is co nduc t.
Su pp res si on is als o n ot jus ti fie d u nd er T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C . art . 38 .23 (a),
whi ch pr oh ib it s ad m is si on of ev id en ce “ ob ta in ed ...in vi ol at io n o f [ th e la w. ]” 5

“ No ev id en ce o bt ai ne d b y an off ic er o r ot he r pe rs on in vi ol at io n o f an y 5 pr ov is io ns of t he Co ns ti tu ti on or l aws of t he Sta te of Tex as , or o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on or laws of t he Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, s ha ll be ad m it te d i n e vi de nc e ag ai ns t t he accu se d o n t he tri al of a ny crim in al cas e.”

24Su bs ect io n (b ) crea te s an ex cep ti on fo r “ ob jecti ve go od fai th rel ia nc e up on a warra nt
is su ed by a ne ut ral m ag is tra te ba se d on pr ob a b l e c a us e.” Thi s Co ur t ha s ob se rv ed
th at su bs ect io n (b ) is th e on ly le gi sl at iv e ex cep ti on to su bs ect io n (a), an d it is
im pe rm is si bl e fo r th e co ur ts to im pl y ex cep ti on s. St at e v. Dau gh er ty , 93 1 S.W .2d
26 8, 27 0 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 96 ). Bu t as ex pl ai ne d be lo w, th e Co ur t ha s in te rp ret ed

“ ob ta in ed ...in vi ol at io n o f [t he law]” to be in ap pl ic ab le in cert ai n s it ua ti on s.
I n Bo y ki n v. St at e , 81 8 S.W .2d 78 2, 78 5 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 91 ), th is C o u r t
he ld th at a rev ie win g co ur t sh ou ld ex am in e th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of a s t a t u t e whe n
in te rp ret in g it s m ean in g, an d sh ou ld co ns ul t ex tra te xt ur al s o u r c e s on ly if th e pl ai n
la ng ua ge is am

bi gu ou s o r le ad s t o ab su rd res ul ts th at th e le gi sl at ur e co ul d n ot ha ve
in te nd ed

. The ro le of th e co ur ts is to “ se ek to effe ct ua te th e ‘col le ct iv e’ in te nt or
pu rp os e of th e le gi sl at or s who en act ed th e le gi sl at io n.” Id

. The li te ral te xt of

su bs ect io n (a) se em s to ap pl y to an y vi ol at io n of th e la w, bu t th is Co ur t ha s no t
al way s ap pl ie d th e pl ai n m ean in g of th at la ng ua ge , whi ch it ack no wled ge d in Ch av ez

v. St at e , 9 S.W .3d 81 7, 81 9 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 2 0 00 ). Se e al so Mil es v. St at e , 24 1
S.W .3d 28 , 32 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 07 ) (Art

. 38 .23 “ is co ns id erab ly m or e co m pl ex in

ap pl ic at io n t ha n i ts si m

pl e wor ds su gg es t.”)

. Fo r ex am pl e, th is Co ur t ha s he ld th at a d e f en da nt m us t es ta bl is h st an di ng to

co m pl a i n a b ou t a pr iv at e pe rs on ’s il le ga l se iz ur e of ev id en ce fro m a th ird pa rty.

25Ful le r v. St at e, 82 9 S.W .2d 19 1, 20 1- 02 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 19 92 ). And in Mil es , th e

Co ur t he ld th at a pe rs on ’s vi ol at io n of tra ffi c la ws in or de r to m ak e a ci ti zen ’s arre st
di d no t im

pl ic at e art ic le 38 .23 , no ti ng th at “ on ly th os e act s whi ch vi ol at e a pe rs on ’s

pr iv acy r i g h t s or pr op ert y in te res ts are su bjec t to th e st at e or fed eral ex cl us io na ry

ru le .” 24 1 S.W .3d at 36 , 46 ; se e al so W il so n v. St at e , 31 1 S.W

. 3d 45 2, 45 9 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 10 ) (th e vi ol at io n of th e la w at is su e m us t be rel at ed “ to th e pu rp os e of
th e ex cl us io na r y ru le or to th e pr ev en ti on of th e il le ga l pr oc ur em en t of ev id en ce of
cri m e.”).
In Roc ha v. St at e , 16 S.W .3d 1 (Tex

. Cri m
. App

. 20 00 ) , t h i s Co ur t he ld th at
Arti cl e 38 .23 do es no t ap pl y to ev id en ce ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of th e Vien na
Co nv en ti on
. Fi rs t, it he ld th at a tre at y is no t a “ la w []of th e Uni te d St at es .” Id

. at 14

- 16

. Tha t de te rm in at io n co ul d ha ve en de d th e an al y si s, bu t t h e C o u rt wen t on to
di sc us s t h e p o l i c y i m

pl ic at io ns of it s ho ld in g. It co nc lu de d th at , be cau se a tre at y do es no t crea te en fo rcea bl e i n d iv id ua l rig ht s an d a vi ol at io n of th e tre at y ha s ot he r

m ean s o f en fo rcem en t, ar ti cl e 3 8.2 3 d id no t p ro vi de a rem ed y
. Id

. at. 1 8- 19

. By ho ld in g th at no t al l vi ol at io ns of th e la w req ui re su pp res si on , th e Co ur t ha s
im pl ic it ly de te rm in ed th at “ vi ol at io n of th e la w” is am bi gu ou s. Se e, e.g ., Roc ha , 16
S.W .3d at 16 (“ The co ns eq ue nc es of a pa r t i c u l a r co ns tru ct io n” of a st at ut e is

ap pr op ria te whe n a d d r e s s i n g an am bi gu ou s st at ut e). The refo re, it is ap pr op ria te to

26co ns id er th e pu rp os e of art ic le 38 .23 whe n de te rm in in g whe th er a vi ol at io n of th e la w

req ui res ex cl us io n. The pu rp os e o f art ic le 38 .23 is : “ to pro te ct a su sp ect ’s pri va cy , pro pe rty, and
li be rty rig ht s ag ai ns t ov erze al ou s la w e nf or cem en t,” an d “ to de te r un la wfu l ac ti on s whi ch v i ol at e th e rig ht s of cri m in al su sp ect s in th e acq ui si ti on of ev id en ce fo r
pr os ecu ti on .” W

il so n, 31 1 S.W .3d at 45 9

. It is no t de si gn ed to pr ot ect ci ti zen s fro m

ov erze al ou s le gi sl at io n or ov erze al ou s co ur t op in io ns
. Si m il arl y , it ’s pu rp os e is no t
si m pl y th e pr ot ect io n of a su sp ect ’s rig ht s ag a i n s t a n y v io la ti on of th e la w. If th at

were th e cas e, al l vi ol at io ns , ev en th os e in Mil es a n d Roc ha , wou ld req ui re

su pp res si on
. In st ead , th e ex cl us io na ry sa nc ti on is ai m ed at de te rri ng m is co nd uc t by
la w en fo rcem en t. Tha t pu rp os e is no t se rv ed by su p p r e s s in g ev id en ce ob ta in ed by

po li ce who co m

pl y wit h th e di ct at es of a pr es um pt iv el y va li d st at ut e an d cas e la w
in te rp ret in g it , ev en if th at st at ut e or cas e la w is la te r in v a l i d a t e d. Und er th os e ci rcu m st an ces , [E]xcl ud in g th e ev id en ce wil l no t fu rth er th e en ds of th e ex cl us io na ry ru le in an y ap pr eci ab le way ; fo r it is p a i n f u l l y ap pa ren t th at

. . . th e of fic er is act in g as a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld an d sh ou ld act in si m il ar c irc um st an ces . Ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce can in no way affe ct hi s f u t u r e co nd uc t u nl es s i t i s t o m ak e h im les s wi ll in g t o d o h is du ty.
Uni te d St at es v. Leo n , 46 8 U.S. 89 7, 91 9- 20 (1 98 4) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. If th is Co ur t de te rm in es th at §7 24 .01 2( b) is un co ns ti tu ti on al or th at i t ha s
27al way s req ui re d a s e arch warra nt de sp it e pr io r cas e la w to th e co nt rary, th en an y

of fic er who ex ecu te d a se arch un de r th e st at ut e wit ho ut a warra nt vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th
A men dm en t. Bu t at th e ti m e of th e bl oo d dr aw in th is cas e, th e ev id en ce wa s n o t

6
ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of th e st at ut e, th e cas e la w in te rp r e t i ng it , or a reas on ab le
in te rp ret at io n of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. The refo re, th e ev id en ce was ad m is si bl e an d
th e Co ur t o f App eal s’ jud gm en t s ho ul d b e rev ers ed

. In th e al te rn at iv e, th is cas e sh ou ld be rem an de d fo r th e Co ur t of A p p e a ls to
ad dr es s ha rm fro m th e ad m is si on of th e bl oo d te st res ul ts

. Evi de nc e of in to xi cat io n
in th is cas e was st ro ng , an d th e to xo lo gi st ’s te st imo n y a b o u t th e am ou nt of

am ph et am in e an d m et ha m

ph et am in e i n App el la nt ’s syste m was no t es pe ci al ly
da m ni ng
. App el la n t dr ov e ov er 10 0 m ph in do wnt own Lon gv ie w, ad m it te d to

m et ha m ph et am in e u se , and was “ twea ki ng .” RR. III : 8 7, 9 2, 1 54 , 22 1, 2 35

. On t he

ot he r ha nd , t h e t o xo lo gi st te st ifi ed th at th e am ou nt of m et ha m ph et am in e in

Lik e a t ree f

al li ng in th e woo ds when no on e is aro un d t o h ear i t, a Fo ur th 6 am en dm en t v io la ti on is st il l a F ou rth Am en dm en t v io la ti on ev en if n o o ne kn ows it at t he ti m e. See Dan

fo rt h v . Min ne so ta , 55 2 U.S. 2 64 , 27 1 (2 00 8) (“ [T]he so ur ce o f a “ ne w rul e” i s t he Co ns ti tu ti on it se lf, n ot an y jud ic ia l p owe r to crea te ne w rul es of l aw. Acco rd in gl y , th e u nd erl y in g ri gh t n eces sa ril y pre -ex is ts ou r art ic ul at io n o f th e n ew ru le .”); Heie n v . Nor th Ca ro li na , 13 5 S .Ct. 5 30 (20 14 ) (“ In th os e cas es , ho wev er, we h ad alr ead y fou nd or a ss um ed a Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n. An off

ic er’s m is ta ke n v ie w th at th e co nd uc t at is su e d id no t g iv e ri se to su ch a vi ol at io n— no m at te r ho w reas on ab le —co ul d n ot ch an ge th at ul ti m at e co nc lu si on .”).
28App el la nt ’s syste m was a “ m od erat e” recr eat io na l do se th at “ co u l d ” ha ve cau se d

in to xi cat io n. RR. IV: 20

- 2 3

. B e c a u s e th e la b rep or t an d su pp or ti ng te st im on y di d
li tt le m or e th an co rro bo rat e App el la nt ’s ad m is si on th at he ha d ta ke n “ a co up le of hi ts
of m et h,” an y

erro r was ha rm le ss
.

29PRAYER FOR RELIE F

W HEREFORE, th e St at e of Tex as pr ay s th at th e Co ur t of Cri m in al App eal s se t
th is cas e fo r su bm is si on , an d th at aft er su bm is si on , th is Co ur t rev ers e th e de ci si on of
th e Co ur t of App eal s. In th e al te rn at iv e, th e St at e pr ay s th at th e Co ur t rem an d to th e
Co ur t of App eal s fo r a h arm an al y si s wi th reg ard to th e ad m is si on of th e bl oo d te st

res ul ts

. Res pe ct fu ll y su bm it te d,
/s / LISA C. M cMI NN
LISA C. McM INN Sta te Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y Bar I.D. No . 13 80 33 00
P.O. Box 13 04 6 Aus ti n, Tex as 78 71 1 in fo rm at io n@ sp a.te xa s.g ov 51 2/ 46 3- 16 60 (Tele ph on e) 51 2/ 46 3- 57 24 (Fax )

30CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE

I c e rti fy th at , acco rd in g to th e W or dP erfe ct wor d co un t to ol , th is do cu men t

co nt ai n 7 98 3 wo rd s.

/s / LISA C. M cMI NN LISA C. McM INN St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y

CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE
I cert ify th at on th is 3 da y of Ju ne , 20 15 , th e St at e’s Bri ef on th e Mer it s was r d

se rv ed vi a cer ti fie d e le ct ro ni c se rv ic e p ro vi de r to :

Zan C ol so n B ro wn Ass is ta nt Dis tri ct Att or ne y 10 1 Eas t M et hv in , Sui te 33 3 Lon gv ie w, Texas , 75 60 1 Zan Co ls on Bro wn zan .bro wn@ co .gre gg .tx .us Ebb Mo bl ey P.O. Box 23 09 Lon gv ie w, Texas 75 60 6 eb bm ob @a ol .co m /s / LISA C. M cMI NN LISA C. McM INN Sta te Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y

31