{"id":5304,"date":"2011-07-10T08:54:59","date_gmt":"2011-03-19T00:01:39","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-03-18T07:50:26","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5304","title":{"rendered":"TX: Failure to inquire into defendant\u2019s medical history before a BAC blood draw did not make the blood draw unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Failure to inquire into defendant\u2019s medical history before a BAC blood draw did not make the blood draw unreasonable under <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=9806833505253407923&amp;q=Schmerber+&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Schmerber<\/a>. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cca.courts.state.tx.us\/opinions\/HTMLopinionInfo.asp?OpinionID=20753\">State v. Johnston<\/a>, 336 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), revg State v. Johnston, 305 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. App.\u2014Fort Worth 2009):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Implicit within <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=9806833505253407923&amp;q=Schmerber+&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Schmerber<\/a> is that each suspect bears the burden of showing that a venipuncture blood draw is not a reasonable means to obtain a blood alcohol level assessment as to him or her, individually. And in the absence of any record evidence showing that a venipuncture blood draw would not be reasonable in a particular case due to a verifiable medical condition, we will presume that the choice to administer such a test is reasonable. A DWI suspect, naturally familiar with his or her own medical history, is in the best position to identify and disclose any peculiar medical condition that could result in risk, trauma, or more than de minimus pain if a blood draw were to be performed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s guilty plea colloquy that he was satisfied with counsel\u2019s efforts did not mention that defense counsel failed to pursue that his confession was the product of an illegal arrest, and his post conviction petition is denied. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.mssc.state.ms.us\/Images\/Opinions\/CO68915.pdf\">Wright v. State<\/a>, 57 So. 3d 683 (Miss. App. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5304\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5304"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5304\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}