TX13: Neither automobile exception nor search incident permit warrantless blood draw for DUI

Exigent circumstances didn’t justify the warrantless blood draw. Neither the automobile exception nor the search incident doctrine can be used to search a person’s blood. Smith v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12372 (Tex. App.– Corpus Christi-Edinburg November 13, 2014):

The State argues that the warrantless blood draw is justified by the automobile exception. See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). The automobile exception turns on a reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367 (1976) (holding that “[b]esides the element of mobility, less rigorous warrant requirements govern because the expectation of privacy with respect to one’s automobile is significantly less than that relating to one’s home or office”). These reduced expectations of privacy derive from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 440-41 (1973).

The State has provided no authority that applies the automobile exception to DWI blood draws. Instead, we find contrary authority. A compelled physical intrusion beneath a defendant’s skin and into his veins to obtain a sample of his blood for use as evidence in a criminal investigation is such an invasion of bodily integrity that it implicates an individual’s “most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.” Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 760 (1985); see also Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n., 489 U.S. 602, 616 (1989). While we agree with the State that a driver has a reduced expectation of privacy, this reduced expectation extends to items within the car that person is driving, not inside the person’s body. See Carney, 471 U.S. at 392. A warrantless blood draw is not justified by the automobile exception.