Page 100 - TPA - A Peace Officer's Guide to Texas Law 2015

conclusion that the warrantless search of Villarreals blood under statutory authority providing for implied
consent and mandatory blood-specimen collection violated the Fourth Amendment.

In addressing the merits of the States challenge to the trial courts ruling, we conclude that the
warrantless, nonconsensual testing of a DWI suspects blood does not categorically fall within any recognized
exception to the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement, nor can it be justified under a general Fourth
Amendment balancing test. Accordingly, we hold that the search in this case violated the Fourth Amendment.
We affirm the trial courts ruling suppressing the blood-test results.

One Saturday evening in 2012, Villarreal was stopped for a traffic violation. The officer who made the
stop, Officer Preiss, observed that Villarreal had signs of intoxication, and he contacted another officer, Officer
Williams, to conduct a DWI investigation. Upon arrival at the scene, Williams observed that Villarreal was
exuding a strong odor of alcohol, was swaying back and forth, and had red, watery eyes and slurred speech.
Williams requested that Villarreal perform standardized field sobriety tests, but he refused. Believing Villarreal
was intoxicated, Williams arrested him on suspicion of DWI. Williams then gave Villarreal a written statutory
warning requesting that he provide a blood specimen and advising him that, if he refused to provide a specimen,
his refusal may be admissible in a subsequent prosecution and would result in the suspension or denial of his
driver s license for not less than 180 days. Villarreal refused.

After a criminal-history check revealed that Villarreal had been convicted of DWI on several occasions,
Williams transported him to a hospital and requested that a qualified technician draw his blood over his objection.
Williams prepared a written report averring that he had probable cause to believe that Villarreal had committed
the offense of DWI and that, based on reliable information possessed or received from a credible source Villarreal
had previously been convicted of or placed on community supervision for DWI on two or more occasions. The
report stated that Williams was invoking [his] authority under [Texas Transportation Code], Section 724.012(b),
to require the suspect to submit to the taking of a specimen of the suspects blood. The qualified technician
drew Villarreals blood, which, upon testing, revealed a blood-alcohol concentration of .16 grams of alcohol per
hundred milliliters of blood.

The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, at which Williams was the sole witness. Williams stated
that he could have obtained a warrant, but believed he did not statutorily have to in light of the mandatory-
blood-draw provision in the Code. He further stated that his decision to require the taking of the specimen was
based solely on the statutory authorization and not on any emergency at the scene or the existence of exigent
circumstances. Aside from Williams testimony, the parties additionally stipulated that Villarreals blood was
drawn without his consent and without a warrant.

With respect to searches of people undertaken for the purpose of furthering a criminal investigation, the
Supreme Court has determined that, in the absence of a search warrant, a search of the person is reasonable only
if it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Absent more precise guidance from the
founding era, we generally determine whether to exempt a given type of search from the warrant requirement by
assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individuals privacy and, on the other, the
degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. For the purpose of
resolving such questions arising under the Fourth Amendment, we examine the totality of the circumstances to
determine whether a particular search is reasonable. Given this totality-of-the-circumstances approach, for the
most part, per se rules are inappropriate in the Fourth Amendment context.

[I]n examining the totality of the circumstances applicable to particular cases, the Supreme Court has
approved of warrantless searches that fit within a recognized exception to the search-warrant requirement, or in
limited situations involving special law enforcement needs, diminished
expectations of privacy, minimal intrusions, or the like. In Schmerber, the Supreme Court considered for the
first time whether a law-enforcement officer may lawfully compel an individual suspected of driving while
intoxicated to submit to blood testing. The Court held that such an intrusion plainly involves the broadly

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 93 2015 Edition