REVERSE and REMAND and Opinion Filed January 26, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00698-CR 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant 

V. 

JACK BRYAN TIGHE II, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 9 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MB18-49378-K 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Osborne, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Osborne 

The trial court granted appellee Jack Bryan Tighe II’s motion to suppress the 

results of the State’s alcohol analysis of his blood after he was charged with driving 

while intoxicated. The State appeals the trial court’s ruling. We reverse the trial 

court’s order and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2018, Texas Department of Public Safety officer Jamal Manigo 

responded to a single vehicle crash on the Dallas North Tollway. Manigo identified 

the driver of the vehicle as Tighe. While interviewing Tighe, Manigo detected an 
 –2– 

odor of alcohol coming from Tighe’s breath and observed that Tighe’s eyes were 

bloodshot, glassy, and watery. Tighe told Manigo that he had consumed two 

alcoholic beverages earlier that day at a work event. 

After conducting standardized field sobriety tests on Tighe, Manigo 

determined that Tighe had lost the normal use of his physical faculties by reason of 

alcohol and placed him under arrest for driving while intoxicated. Manigo asked 

Tighe for permission to take a blood sample. When Tighe refused, Manigo executed 

an affidavit for a search warrant to obtain a blood specimen from Tighe. The 

magistrate issued a search warrant that provided in part: 

Now, therefore, you are commanded to take custody of the suspect and 

transport the suspect to a medical or jail facility in Dallas County, Texas 

where you shall search for, seize and maintain as evidence the property 

described in said Affidavit, to-wit: human blood from the body of 

[Tighe]. 

Manigo took Tighe to Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas and executed the 

warrant less than an hour after the magistrate issued it by having a registered nurse 

draw the blood from Tighe. The blood specimen was submitted to the Texas 

Department of Public Safety Crime Lab in Garland on April 24, 2018. The lab issued 

an Alcohol Content Laboratory Report dated August 30, 2018, showing that Tighe’s 

blood had an alcohol concentration of 0.186 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of 

blood. 

Tighe moved to suppress the results of the analysis of his blood that was seized 

pursuant to the warrant. Relying on State v. Martinez, 570 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. Crim. 
 –3– 

App. 2019), Tighe argued that the search warrant only allowed the state to seize his 

blood; it did not allow the State to analyze the blood it collected. 

At the hearing on Tighe’s motion to suppress, all of the supporting documents 

including the affidavit, the warrant, and the laboratory report were admitted into 

evidence. The trial court heard the parties’ arguments and stated on the record that 

Tighe’s motion was granted for two reasons: (1) the State failed to obtain a second 

warrant for testing as Martinez requires, and (2) the analysis was not made within 

three days of the warrant’s issuance, as required by the code of criminal procedure. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 18.07(a)(3) (three-day period allowed for execution 

of search warrant, exclusive of day of issuance and day of execution). The trial court 

also signed a written order granting the motion on November 11, 2019. This appeal 

followed. 

ANALYSIS

In a single issue, the State argues that the trial court erred by granting the 

motion to suppress.1

 We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under

a bifurcated standard of review. State v. Staton, 599 S.W.3d 614, 616 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2020, pet. ref’d) (citing State v. Ruiz, 577 S.W.3d 543, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2019)). We give almost total deference to the trial court’s determination of historical 

 1

 Tighe has not filed an appellate brief. As we have explained, Tighe argued in the trial court that 

Martinez required suppression of the test results because the warrant authorized only seizure of his blood, 

not testing. In its appellate issue, the State challenges both grounds cited by the trial court in its oral ruling, 

Martinez and code of criminal procedure § 18.07. 
 –4– 

facts and review de novo the application of the law to the facts. Id. We view the 

record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and uphold the ruling if 

it is supported by the record and is correct under any theory of the law applicable to 

the case. Id. 

After the trial court signed its order in this case and this appeal was filed, the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in Crider v. State, 607 S.W.3d 

305 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020), petition for cert. filed, No. 20-823 (U.S. Dec. 17, 2020). 

Considering similar facts to those before us now, the court stated: “Here, the State 

obtained the blood sample by way of a magistrate’s determination that probable 

cause existed to justify its seizure—for the explicit purpose of determining its 

evidentiary value to prove the offense of driving while intoxicated. That magistrate’s 

determination was sufficient in this case to justify the chemical testing of the blood. 

And this is so, we hold, even if the warrant itself did not expressly authorize the 

chemical testing on its face.” Id. at 308. 

Here as in Crider, the magistrate’s determination that probable cause existed 

to justify the seizure of the blood sample from Tighe was sufficient to justify the 

chemical testing of the blood seized. See id.; see also State v. Jones, 608 S.W.3d 

262, 264 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet. ref’d) (concluding Martinez did not apply 

to blood draw pursuant to warrant “because it dealt with a different question—i.e., 

whether ‘an individual has an expectation of privacy in blood previously drawn for 

purposes other than police testing,’” quoting Staton, 599 S.W.3d at 618). 
 –5– 

Also after the trial court issued its order and the State filed this appeal, this 

Court considered and rejected the argument that code of criminal procedure article 

18.07 governs the time for testing blood as well as the time for seizing it. In State v. 

Jones, we explained: 

[Article 18.07] merely provides the deadlines for seizing the evidence, 

not analyzing it. It specifies that with certain exceptions not applicable 

here, a warrant must be executed within three days of its issuance, 

exclusive of the day of issuance and the day of execution. . . . The 

execution of the warrant is the blood draw, not the testing and/or 

analysis of that blood. Our opinion in Staton says nothing about 

imposing a deadline for the testing and/or analysis of blood, much less 

applying the statutory deadline of article 18.07(a)(3) to the testing 

and/or analysis of the blood, and we decline Jones's invitation to create 

new law on this subject.

Jones, 608 S.W.3d at 264–65 (citing Staton, 599 S.W.3d at 618). 

We conclude the trial court erred by granting appellee’s motion to suppress. 

See Crider, 607 S.W.3d at 308; Jones, 608 S.W.3d at 264–65; Staton, 599 S.W.3d 

at 618. We sustain the State’s sole issue.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress and remand 

the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

200698F.U05 

/Leslie Osborne/ 

LESLIE OSBORNE 

JUSTICE 
 –6– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant 

No. 05-20-00698-CR V. 

JACK BRYAN TIGHE II, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Criminal 

Court No. 9, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MB18-49378-

K. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Osborne. Justices Myers and Carlyle 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s November 19, 2019 

order granting appellee Jack Bryan Tighe II’s motion to suppress is REVERSED

and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings. 

Judgment entered January 26, 2021