TX12: DUI blood test suppressed under McNeely for no showing of exigency

The trial court suppressed holding that there was no showing of exigency for a DUI blood test under McNeely, and that is affirmed. The trial court was wrong about probable cause because there was. However, the trial court was right that the game warden was wrong about a blood test being mandatory because there was an accident. State v. Baker, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 12818 (Tex. App. – Tyler October 16, 2013):

As we have explained, law enforcement officers may constitutionally obtain a blood sample without a warrant or consent if they have probable cause, exigent circumstances, and a reasonable method of extraction. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770-71; Aliff, 627 S.W.2d at 169-70. We have concluded that the game wardens had probable cause to arrest Appellee. We also note that neither party contends that the method of extraction was unreasonable. The dispute revolves around the remaining factor, whether there were exigent circumstances. The State contends that the warrantless taking of the blood specimen was permissible because exigent circumstances existed at the time of the blood draw, namely, the fact that alcohol dissipates rapidly from the bloodstream.

The following evidence is the only evidence relevant to the exigency relied upon by the State—the natural dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream.3 Specifically, Warden Smith testified that “I didn’t know if this guy was going to die, so I was doing all I could to get to the hospital to get a blood draw so if this guy did die, that was my evidence.” ….

Without any other evidence of exigent circumstances, such as evidence that it would take too long to procure a warrant under these circumstances, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the State failed to show that the warrantless blood draw was supported by exigent circumstances. See McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1562.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.