### N UMBER 13 - 1 3 - 00 471 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

DANIEL ZALMAN , Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law of Whar t on County, Texas

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justice s Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria By two issues, which we reorganize and will address as four, appellant Daniel Zalman appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated, first offense. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 49.04 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). We affirm.2 I. B ACKGROUND A. Background Facts On September 13, 2009, Officer Jason Gingles of the El Campo Police Department (Gingles) and Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Jose Mena (Mena) were working “secondary employment” by providing private security at a Whataburger in the city of El Campo in Wharton County, Texas. That particula r Whataburger employed officers on Friday and Saturday nights between 11:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. because, in Mena’s words, “that’s when the bars close on Fridays and Saturday, and a lot of people go to Whataburger” afterwards. At approximately 1:45 a.m. , th e manager informed both officers that the drive

- through line had stopped moving. Both Mena and Gingles testified that they knew from past experience working security at that Whataburger that if the line stopped moving early in the morning, it usually mean t that a driver was intoxicated and had lost consciousness. After exiting the building, the two officers saw an SUV with a male in the driver’s seat and a female in the passenger seat. Both officers testified that the driver, appellant, was “slumped over” behind the wheel. Mena, who approached on the driver’s side, testified that appellant’s eyes were closed. The female passenger, appellant’s wife, noticed the two officers approaching and shook appellant by the shoulder. Appellant pulled the car forward until he stopped near where Mena stood on the grass next to the drive

- through lane and rolled down the window. Mena asked if appellant was “alright” and appellant responded that he was “fine.” Mena testified that he smelled a strong odor of alcohol comi ng from appellant and observed that his eyes were “red, glassy, [and] bloodshot.” Mena asked appellant to step into the backseat of the car so that Mena could3

drive the car to the parking lot of the business next door, where the two officers planned to pe rform a DWI investigation. Trooper Mark Contreras (Contreras), who was on duty and exiting the Whataburger at the time, took over the investigation. After observing appellant and requesting that he perform a field sobriety test, Contreras arrested appell ant for driving while intoxicated. See id. Following his arrest, appellant refused to provide a breath sample. Contreras applied to Justice of the Peace Cynthia Kubicek for a search warrant to draw a sample of appellant’s blood for testing. In the affi davit attached to the application, Contreras stated that “[o]n or about the 13th day of September, 2009, [appellant] did then and there operate a motor vehicle in a public place in Wharton County, Texas while intoxicated.” He further stated that Mena “to ld me that he/she witnessed the suspect operating a motor vehicle in a public place in Wharton County, Texas, shortly before I contacted [appellant].” Contreras stated that he smelled a strong odor of alcoholic beverages coming from appellant and observed that appellant had “red, blood shot and glassy” eyes, slurred speech, failed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus field sobriety test, and admitted to Contreras that he had been drinking alcoholic beverages. Judge Kubicek signed a search warrant to draw appella nt’s blood at 3:09 a.m. on the same day. Appellant waited in the “Intoxilyzer” room inside the Wharton County Jail while Contreras applied for the warrant. During that time, an insect crawled down appellant’s right sleeve. At approximately 3:30 a.m., Eme rgency Medical Technician Scott Gann (Gann) drew a vial of blood from appellant’s left arm. Gann testified that he followed standard procedure for blood draws, including cleaning the injection site w ith an iodine solution, and using sterile equipment that he obtained from the hospital. Gann also4

testified that the room appeared sanitary at the time of the blood draw. Contreras testified that the room is routinely cleaned by jail trustees, but that he did not know the time of the last cleaning. Contreras did not see any insects at the time of the blood draw but admitted

on cross - examination that he heard crickets chirping in the background on the video of the blood draw.
B. Legal Background Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the blood test resul ts on four grounds: (1) Mena and Gingles detained appellant without reasonable suspicion; (2) Contreras’s affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause because it did not include the specific time that Mena and Contreras observed him driving and allegedly displaying signs of intoxication; (3) the blood draw did not occur in a sanitary place as is required by statute; and (4) the search warrant was not signed by a licensed attorney as required by the code of criminal procedure. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 18.01(j) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). The trial court granted the motion specifically on the second ground. Three mon ths later, the trial court granted the State’s motion to reconsider the previous ruling, withdrew the order suppressing the blood evidence, and denied the motion to suppress. On the same day, the trial court denied a separate motion to suppress that reasserted the first ground. N o findings of fact were requested or filed at any time. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict of guilty. By agreement, the trial judge assessed a sentence of 180 days in county jail, a $500 fine, and court costs, suspended the sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision for twelve5

months. A visiting judge granted appellant’s motion for a new trial. 1 The State appealed , and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals eventually reversed. State v. Zalman , No. 13

- 11

- 00115

- CR, 2012 WL 3792737 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Aug. 31, 2012), rev'd, 400 S.W.3d 590, 594

– 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Appellant now challenges his conviction on direct appeal. By four issues, which we have reordered, appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant’s motions to suppress because: (1) Judge Kubicek had no authority to sign the warrant because she was not a licensed attorney; (2) Mena and Gingles did not possess reasonable suspicion to justify detaining appellant; (3) th e affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause because it did not specify the time when Mena and Contreras observed appellant; and (4) the blood draw was unreasonable because it occurred in an unsanitary place. 2
II. M OTION TO S UPPRESS S TANDARD OF R EVIEW We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard of review. Turrubiate v. State , 399 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We afford almost total deference to the trial judge’s determination of historical fact s because the judge is the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Valtierra v. State , 310 S.W.3d 442, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). When, as here, the trial court does not issue findi ngs of fact, we imply all

1 The newly

- elected judge of the trial court recused himself because appellant and his family contributed to his judicial campaign.

2 Appellant raised these issues in a “memorandum of law” that he filed in support of his motion for new trial

. The Texas Court of Criminal A ppeals held that the memorandum was an untimely amendment and that the motion alone was not s ufficient to raise these evidentiary issues. State v. Zalman , 400 S.W.3d 590, 594

– 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The C ourt emphasized that its holding did not mean that appellant waived any of these issues. Id. at 595.6

necessary findings in support of the trial court’s ruling if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the ruling, supports those findings. State v. Kelly , 204 S.W.3d 808, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We review de novo the trial court’s application of law to the facts of the case unless the implied findings are also dispositive of the legal issue. Id. We will sustain the trial court’s ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and correct on any applicable theo ry of law. Turrubiate , 399 S.W.3d at 150.
III. A UTHORITY TO I SSUE THE W ARRANT By his first issue, appellant argues that the court should have granted his motion to suppress because only magistrates who are attorneys licensed in this State may sign
a warrant to obtain a blood sample, and Judge Kubicek is not a licensed attorney. See
T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 18.01(j) . We disagree.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. Tha Dang Nguyen v. State , 359 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). When interpreting a
statute , courts “seek to effectuate the ‘collective’ intent or purpose of the legislators who enacted the legislation.” Reynolds v. State , 423 S.W.3d 377, 382 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2014) (citing Boykin v. State , 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). We begin with the language of the statute and attempt to discern the “fair, objective meaning” of the statutory text at the time of its enactment. Id. If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we will give effect to its plain meaning unless that interpretation would lead to absurd consequences that the Legislature could not have intended. Dobbs v. State , 434 S.W.3d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We assume that the Legislature chose every word with a purpose, and we attempt to give effect to each word, phrase, clause, and sentence in7

the law if reasonably possible. Id. at 172. The code of criminal procedure authorizes magistrates 3 to issue search warrants for the seizure of “property or other items, except personal writings by the accused, constituting evidence of an offense or constituting evidence tending to show that a particular person committed an offense.” T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 18.02(10) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). A blood specimen is an item that may be searched for and seized under article 18.02( 10). Clay v. State , 391 S.W.3d 94, 97 n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ; Thom v. State , 437 S.W.3d 556, 560 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). Only a judge of a municipal court of record who is an attorney licensed in this state, a county court judge who is a licensed Texas attorney , a statutory county court judge, a dist rict court judge, a judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, a justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, or a magistrate with criminal jurisdiction serving a district court may sign an evidentiary warrant. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 18.01(c) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). Justices of the Peace are excluded from this list and generally may not issue warrants pursuant to article 18.02(10). State v. Acosta , 99 S.W.3d 301, 303 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref'd) (en banc). However, in a county that does not have a judge of a municipal court of record who is a licensed attorney, a county court judge who is a licensed attorney, or a statutory county court judge, “any magistrate may issue a search warrant under subdivis ion (10)” of article
18.02. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 18.01(i) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). And subsection (j) provides: “[a]ny magistrate who is an attorney licensed by this state

3 Justices of the P eace are magistrate s under the code of criminal procedure

. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 2.09 ( West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.)

.8

may issue a search warrant under Article 18.02(10) to col lect a blood specimen” from a person who is arrested for driving while intoxicated or other alcohol

- related offenses and who refuses to submit to a breath or alcohol test. Id. art. 18.01(j).
B. Discussion It is undisputed that Wharton County does not have a judge of a municipal court of record who is a licensed attorney, a county court judge who is a licensed attorney, or a statutory county court judge. Appellant argues that whether subsection (i) applies to Wharton County is irrelevant because subsection (j) provides that only magistrates with a law license may sign a search warrant to obtain a blood specimen. Therefore, the warrant is void because Judge Kubicek, a justice of the peace, had no authority t o issue it. Appellant reasons that by enacting subsection (i) the Legislature expanded the number of magistrates available to issue evidentiary warrants in certain counties but later took away that power as it applied to warrants to obtain a blood specime n by enacting subsection (j). We disagree. Appellant is correct that subsection (i) expands the list of magistrates with the authority to issue evidentiary warrants in certain counties. Barrios v. State , No. 07

- 13

- 00426

- CR, ___ S.W.3d. ___, 2014 WL 683 6310, at *7 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Dec. 2, 2014, no pet. h.); see Muniz v. State , 264 S.W.3d 392, 398 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (interpreting the former version of subsection (i)). S ubsection (j) provides that “any” magistrate who is an a ttorney licensed in this state

“ may ” issue an evidentiary warrant to collect a blood specimen. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 18.01(j). To read subsection (j) as restricting which magistrates may issue a warrant to obtain a blood specimen essentially re quires us to substitute “only” for “any” in9

the text of the statute. The Amarillo Court recently observed that “any,” as it is used in subsection (j), “is an adjective used to indicate a person or thing that is not particular or specific.” Barrios , 2014 WL 6836310, at *8 (internal citations omitted). We must presume that the Legislature chose every word in the statute carefully and for a purpose. 4 See Dobbs , 434 S.W.3d at 170. The plain language of subsection (j) is not ambiguous and does not create an absurdity: any magistrate who is also an attorney licensed by this state may sign an evidentiary warrant to obtain a blood specimen whether or not the magistrate is located in a county where subsection (i) applies. Barrios , 2014 WL 6836310, at *8. This interpretation harmonizes subsections (i) and (j) and gives full effect to each, while appellant’s interpretation restricts the reach of subsection (i). See Dobbs , 434 S.W.3d at 172 (observing that we must give effect to the entire statute if reasonably possible); see also Barrios , 2014 WL 6836310, at *8. Appellant argues that the Legislature must nevertheless have intended to restrict the authority to issue warrants to obtain a blood specimen because a forced blood draw is an invasion of bodily integri ty which “implicates an individual's most personal and deep

rooted expectations of privacy.” Missouri v. McNeely , 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree that a blood draw implicates especially personal expectations of pr ivacy, but just as with any search, a warrant to collect a blood specimen is simply required to comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. See id. (citing Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757, 768 (1969)); Sanchez v. State , 365

4 I f the Legislature wanted to provide that “only” some magistrates may sign certain types of warrants , it knew how to do so and , in fact, did so elsewhere in article 18.01. Compare T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 18.01(c) (providing that “only” certain magistrates may sign evidentiary warrants), and id. art . 18.01(h) (providing that “only” the same three classes of judges may issue a search warrant for the seizure of contraband), with id. art. 18.01(j) (providing that “any” magistrate who is a licensed attorney may issue a search warrant to obtain a blood sp ecimen so long a s certain conditions are met).10

S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“Although a blood draw constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution will not be offended if the draw occurs pursuant to a valid search warrant.”). And, in any event, even if we agreed with appel lant about the Legislature’s intent in enacting the statute, courts must apply the text of an unambiguous statute so long as it does not create an absurdity. See Dobbs , 434 S.W.3d
at 170. W e conclude that the plain language of subsection (j) does not rest rict the power to sign a blood evidence warrant to magistrates who are also Texas

- licensed attorneys, but instead identifies one permissible set of magistrates authorized to issue a search warrant for the collection of a blood specimen. It does not restri ct the authorization extended by subsection (i), which governs this case. See Barrios , 2014 WL 6836310, at
**7

– 8. B ecause Judge Kubicek had the authority to issue the warrant under subsection (i), we overrule appellant’s first issue.
IV. W HEN WAS A PPELLANT D ETAINED ? By his second issue, appellant argues that Mena and Gingles lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him because they were not in possession of any facts indicating that he was intoxicated. Appellant’s argument presupposes that he was detained as s oon as he stopped his car, but the State responds that appellant was not detained until Mena requested that appellant exit the driver’s seat, at which time the officers possessed reasonable suspicion to detain him. We agree with the State.
A. Applicable Law Courts have recognized three general categories of police

- citizen interactions: (1) consensual encounters, which do not implicate the Fourth Amendment; (2) investigatory11

detentions, which require reasonable suspicion; and (3) arrests, which require probab le

cause. State v. Castleberry , 332 S.W.3d 460, 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (internal footnotes omitted). An officer is just as free as anyone to stop and question a fellow citizen, and the citizen is free to terminate the encounter at will. Id. ; see Flo rida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991) (observing that “a seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions”). But if an officer detains a citizen through force or a show of authority, the interact ion has become an investigative detention that requires reasonable suspicion. Wade v. State , 422 S.W.3d 661, 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). There is no bright

- line rule for determining when an encounter becomes a detention. Id. at 667. Instead, courts must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interaction to determine whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the encounter. Id. at 667

– 68

. We take into account the time, place, and other c ircumstances surrounding the interaction, but the most important factor is the officer’s conduct. Castleberry , 332 S.W.3d at 467. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that “[a]t bottom the issue is whether the surroundings and the words or

a ctions of the officer and his associates communicate the message of ‘We Who Must Be Obeyed.’” State v. Garcia

- Cantu , 253 S.W.3d 236, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

. B. Discussion Appellant argues that Mena detained him by commanding him to stop the vehicle and, at the time, Mena and Gingles were not in possession of any facts supporting reasonable suspicion to detain him. Mena and Gingles were only aware that appellant had probabl y fallen asleep behind the wheel of his car, which appellant asserts is not a12

criminal offense. However, Mena did not testify that he commanded appellant to stop the

car. 5 By denying the motion to suppress , the trial court impliedly found Mena’s testimony to be credible, and we may not disturb this record

- supported finding. See Kelly , 204 S.W.3d at 819. A vocal command is not a required element of a seizure, see Wade , 422 S.W.3d
at 667

– 68, but when viewing the totality of the circumstances in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we find nothing to indicate that appellant was seized before Mena requested appellant to go to the backseat of the car. Mena and Gingles approached the car, Mena as ked appellant a question, and appellant responded. Until this point, neither Mena nor Gingles gave any sign that appellant not was not free to leave. 6 At that time, the interaction was a consensual encounter which required no objective justification. Se e Castleberry

, 332 S.W.3d at 466 (observing that a police officer is just as free as anyone to stop and question a fellow citizen). After appellant lowered his window and responded to Mena’s question, Mena observed that appellant’s eyes were red, glassy, and bloodshot, and he perceived that appellant gave off a strong odor of alcohol. Appellant does not contest that Mena had reasonable suspicion to detain appellant for a DWI

5 The portion of Mena’s testimony that appellant cites is as follows: [Defense Counsel]: But it is clear that you stopped [appellant] as he attempted to pull forward in the drive

- through, correct? [Mena]: He pulled up next to me. [Defense Counsel]: Okay. Did you order his car to stop or was it Officer Gingles? [Mena]: No. He stopped, I mean, he just stopped when he got to me because I stepped over to the grass. I was walking up and stepped over to t he grass and he stopped when he came up to me. Had he not stopped, I would have stopped him, yes.

6 Appellant cites to State v. Griffey as support that he was detained , but the officer in that case used his police vehicle to block the drive

- through lan e to prevent the driver , who was reportedly “passed out behind the wheel , ” from exiting. 241 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2007, pet. ref'd).13

investigation at that time based on those observations. We accordingly overrule appellant’s second issue.

V. W AS THE A FFIDAVIT S UFFICIENT TO E STABLISH P ROBABLE C AUSE ? By his third issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the facts within the four corners of the affidavit attached to the warrant application were not sufficient to establish probable cause that alcohol would still be present in his bloodstream.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law Both the federal and state constitutions provide that warrants may not issue except on a sho wing of probable cause. U.S. C ONST

. amend. IV; T EX

. C ONST . art. I, § 9. Magistrates may issue a warrant only after a peace officer has filed an affidavit “setting forth substantial facts establishing probable cause.” T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 18.01(b). When reviewing a magistrate’s decision to issue a warrant, we apply a highly deferential standard of review because of the constitutional preference for searches conducted pursuant to warrants over warrantless searches. Bonds v. State , 4 03 S.W.3d 867, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). W e will uphold the magistrate’s determination provided that there was a “substantial basis” for concluding that probable cause existed. Id. While the “substantial basis” standard does not mean that reviewing co urts act as a rubber stamp, it “does mean that the magistrate's decision should carry the day in doubtful or marginal cases, even if the reviewing court might reach a different result upon de novo review.” Flores v. State , 319 S.W.3d 697, 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).14

Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is at least a “fair probability,” or a “substantial chance” that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at the specified loca tion at the time the warrant issues and the search is executed. Crider v. State , 352 S.W.3d 704, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Neither federal nor Texas law defines precisely what degree of probability is sufficient to establish probable cause, but it cann ot be based only on the conclusory statements of the affiant. Rodriguez v. State , 232 S.W.3d 55, 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The affidavit must provide sufficient facts to allow the magistrate to make an independent determination of whether probable cause exists to issue a warrant. Id. In making this determination, the trial court is limited to the four corners of the affidavit. Bonds , 403 S.W.3d at 873. The magistrate interpret s the affidavit in a non

- technical, common

- sense manner and may draw

reason able inferences from the facts contained within the affidavit. Id. Facts brought forth in an affidavit which would ordinarily support probable cause can become “stale” by the passage of time. Crider , 352 S.W.3d at 707. To determine whether facts in an affidavit have become stale, courts examine “in light of the type of criminal activity involved, the time elapsing between the occurrence of the events set out in the affidavit and the time the search warrant was issued.” Id. (internal quotation marks

om itted). When, as here, the facts in the affidavit show a single, nonrecurring crime that occurred at a specific location, the question is how long after that time “evidence of that single crime can be expected to remain at the scene.” Id. at 708. Becaus e alcohol quickly dissipates from a person’s bloodstream, facts brought forward to support issuing a warrant to obtain a specimen of blood from a DWI suspect become stale “quite rapidly.” Id

. However, there is no hard rule setting the outer limit of time between the arrest of a15

DWI suspect and the time when there is no longer a substantial basis to believe that evidence of intoxication could probably be found in the suspect’s blood. Id. at 707. B. Discussion Trooper Contreras alleged in his affidavit that “[o]n or about the 13th day of September, 2009, [appellant] did then and there operate a motor vehicle in a public place in Wharton County, Texas while intoxicated.” The affidavit did not include the specific time when Trooper Contreras allegedly observe d appellant exhibiting signs of intoxication or when Trooper Mena allegedly observed him operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Appellant reasons that in light of these deficiencies, the judge must have improperly looked outside the affidavit to conclude that the facts alleged therein were not stale. 7 We disagree. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided a case with similar facts in State v. Jordan , 342 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). In that case, the arresting officer presented an affidavit in which he stated that he had reason to believe that the suspect committed the offense of driving while intoxicated “on or about” June 6,
2008. Id

. T he officer applied for the warrant in the “early morning hours” of the same day. Id. The affidavit detailed observations by other police officers that the defendant drove the wrong way down a one

- way street and exhibited various other signs of intoxicati on, but did not specify the date and time of those observations. Id. at 567

– 68. The magistrate signed the warrant at 3:54 a.m. on June 6, 2008. Id. at 568. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that under the facts and circumstances of the case,

7 Appellant also argues that affidavit was insufficient because it “failed to include the existence of an informer, what time the officers were informed, and what the informer told the officers,” but the affidavit allege d that Mena informed Contreras that h e witnessed appellant operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Appellant further argues that the affidavit was insufficient because it did not give the location of the Whataburger within Wharton County, but appellant does not explain why supplying the exact location where these events allegedly occurred was necessary to establish probable cause in this particular case.16

the affidavit’s introductory statement alleging that the offense occurred on “June 6, 2008” gave the magistrate a substantial basis to infer that the officers also observed the elements of the offense on June 6, 2008. Id. at 570

– 71. By comparison, in Cr ider , the Court concluded that there was no probable cause when the gap between the arrest of the allegedly

- intoxicated driver and the signing of the warrant could have been as long as twenty
- five hours. 352 S.W.3d at 710. Contreras’s affidavit is similar to the one filed in Jordan . He alleged that appellant committed an offense on or about September 13, 2009 and described Mena’s observations as well as his own, but did not specifically state at what hour these observations occurred. Contreras swore the affidavit in the early morning of the same date on which he alleged in the affidavit that appellant committed the offense, and the magistrate signed and issued the warrant at 3:09 a.m. The time that elapsed between the arrest and the signing of the warran t was, at most, three hours and nine minutes, less than the four hours approved by the Court in Jordan

. See 342 S.W.3d at 570

– 71. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that the magistrate had a substantial basis to infer th at the observations of Mena and Contreras in the affidavit also occurred on September 13, 2009. 8 See id. We overrule appellant’s third issue.

VI. W AS THE B LOOD D RAW C ONDUCTED IN AN U NREASONABLE M ANNER ? By his fourth issue, appellant argues that trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because his blood was drawn in a room “covered in insects” in violation of

8 We emphasize that our holding does not mean that a similar affidavit submitted on the same day as an arrest, even one shortly after the a rrest, is necessarily sufficient to establish probable cause. As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals observed in Crider : “ [t] he ultimate criteria in determining the evaporation of probable cause are not found in case law, but in reason and common sense.” Crider v. State , 352 S.W.3d 704, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) . We hold only that under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the magistrate had a sufficient basis to determine that probable cause existed to issue a search warrant to obtain a blood specimen from this particular appellant.17

his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the statuto ry requirement that a blood sample “must be taken in a sanitary place.” T EX

. T RANSP

. C ODE A NN

. § 724.017(a

- 1) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). We disagree.
A. Applicable Law When a blood draw is conducted pursuant to a warrant, chapter 724 of the
tran sportation code is inapplicable because consent, implied or otherwise, is irrelevant. State v. Johnston , 336 S.W.3d 649, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Beeman v. State , 86 S.W.3d 613, 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (en banc). Assessment of whether a blood draw was reasonable is thus “purely a matter of Fourth Amendment law.” Johnston , 336 S.W.3d at 661. Making this determination involves a two

- part inquiry: (1) whether police were justified in making a defendant submit to a blood draw; and (2) “whether the me ans and procedures employed in taking [the defendant’s] blood respected relevant Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness.” Schmerber , 384 U.S. at 768; accord Johnston , 336 S.W.3d at 658. The second inquiry contains two discrete questions: whether t he means of testing were reasonable, and whether the “test was performed in a reasonable manner.” Johnston , 336 S.W.3d at 658. A “venipuncture” blood draw is a presumptively reasonable means of measuring a suspect’s blood alcohol content. Id. at 660. T he defendant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption by presenting evidence of a verifiable medical condition that would make a blood draw from that particular defendant unreasonable. Id. We determine whether the test was performed in a reasonable manner on an objective basis in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the blood draw. Id. at 661.18

B. Discussion Appellant challenges only the second prong of the second part of the Schmerber reasonableness test: whether the test was performed in a reasonable manner. Appellant asserts that the presence of insects “in a room [and] that crawled on a person prior to a blood draw for evidentiary purposes [is] at a minimum unreasonable under the circumstances and pre sent[ed] an unjustified risk of infection to” appellant. The Fourth Amendment does not require that a blood draw occur in a medical environment or an ideal one, only that the “environment is a safe place in which to draw blood.” 9 Id. at 662. Appellant a sserts that the presence of insects in the room makes the blood draw unreasonable, but he has provided no evidence that the presence of insects affected the safety of the blood draw or placed him at an unjustified risk of infection or pain. See Schmerber

, 384 U.S. at 771

– 72. The one insect that ca me into contact with appellant did not crawl down the arm used to draw blood, and it was gone by the time of the blood draw. Gann testified that he followed the normal procedure for a blood draw: he used steril e equipment from the hospital, used iodine to clean and sterilize the injection site, and properly bandaged the injection site afterwards. See Johnston , 336 S.W.3d at
662

– 63 (holding the fact that a blood draw performed according to medical practice by a police officer trained as an emergency medical technician supported the reasonableness of the blood draw). Gann also testified that the room appeared sanitary at the time of the blood draw. By overruling appellant’s motion to suppress, the trial court im pliedly found

9 Because the blood draw in this case was conducted pursuant to a warrant, we need not discuss section 724.017(a

- 1) of the transportation code any further. See State v. Johnston , 336 S.W.3d 649, 661 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2011) (holding that chapter 724 does not apply to blood draws conducted pursuant to a warrant); Beeman v. State , 86 S.W.3d 613, 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (en banc) (same); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.1. And e ven if chapter 724 did apply to this case , it is not clear that it would affo rd appel lant any greater relief. See T EX

. T RANSP

. C ODE A NN

. § 724.017 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) . T he term “sanitary place” is undefined in the statute and there is no case law interpreting it.19

the testimony of both witnesses to be credible. See Kelly , 204 S.W.3d at 819. While we agree that an environment totally devoid of insects would be an ideal environment in which to draw blood, Schmerber does not require an ideal environmen t, only a safe one. Johnston , 336 S.W.3d at 662. Even if we accept that there were multiple crickets present in the Intoxilyzer room at the time of the blood draw, appellant still has not shown how the presence of insects made the blood draw unreasonable

. Appellant has not shown that the insects contaminated Gann’s equipment, for example, or touched the injection site during or after the actual blood draw. See id

. ; see also Martin v. State , No. 10

- 10

- 00426

- CR, 2012 WL 3242666, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Waco Aug. 9, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (upholding a blood draw conducted in a room at the jail that the nurse drawing blood testified was “relatively sanitary” and where the nurse testified that she used a sterile procedure follow ing accepted medical practice). Because appellant has not shown that the blood draw was performed in a manner that included an “unjustified element of personal risk or infection or pain,” Schmerber , 384 U.S. at 771

– 72, we conclude that appellant has not s hown that the blood draw was unreasonable. See Johnston , 336 S.W.3d at 662. We overrule appellant’s fourth issue.
VII. C ONCLUSION We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 5th day of February , 201 5

.