February 26, 2015 No. PD-0097-15
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NICHOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT DALLAS
Cause number 05-13-01004-CR _____________________________________________________________
STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW _____________________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE 401ST JUDIDICAL DISTRICT COURT OF COLLIN COUNTY, THE HONORABLE MARK RUSCH, JUDGE PRESIDING
GREG WILLIS JOHN R. ROLATER, JR. Criminal District Attorney Asst. Criminal District Attorney Collin County, Texas Chief of the Appellate Division
ZEKE FORTENBERRY ANDREA L. WESTERFELD GEETA SINGLETARY Asst. Criminal District Attorney CALLI BAILEY 2100 Bloomdale Rd., Ste. 200 Asst. Criminal District Attorneys McKinney, Texas 75071 State Bar No. 24042143 (972) 548-4323 FAX (214) 491-4860 awesterfeld@co.collin.tx.us TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iii STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT.............................................v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................. vi
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................... vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................... vi
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .........................................................1
REASONS FOR REVIEW .....................................................................................1
ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................2
1. Is a warrantless, mandatory blood draw conducted pursuant to Section 724.012(b)(3)(B) with the implied consent of the subject reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? .........................................................2 Consent is a long-recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement to obtain a warrant before conducting a search. Section 724.012(b) of the Texas Transportation Code implies a subject’s consent under certain circumstances. This Court should reconsider its recent opinion in State v. Villarreal and conclude that this implied consent is sufficient to dispense with the warrant requirement. 2. Did the court of appeals err in failing to address one of the State’s arguments that would justify the warrantless blood draw? .................................4 3. Did the court of appeals err in finding there were not exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless blood draw? ...........................4 An appellate court is required to address every issue necessary to the resolution of the appeal. The Fifth Court of Appeals failed to address the State’s argument that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw in the instant case. Further, even if its opinion can be considered to have addressed the issue, it erred in concluding
i that exigent circumstances did not exist. The length of time in investigating a major accident, the late hour of the investigation, and Appellant’s attempts to impede the investigation all amounted to exigent circumstances that justified a warrantless blood draw. PRAYER FOR RELIEF..........................................................................................8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...............................................................................9
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................9
APPENDIX
ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes, Codes, and Rules
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1 ...................................................................................................5
TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(c) ..............................................................................................1
TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(f) ...............................................................................................1
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(c) ............................................................................................. vi
TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 724.012........................................................... vi, vii, 2, 3, 4, 5
TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 724.012(b)(3)(B) ................................................................1, 2
Cases
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) ................................................................................................3 Douds v. State, No. PD-0857-14 (granted Sep. 17, 2014) ........................................................................................... 3
Flores v. State, No. PD-0071-15 (filed Feb. 17, 2015) ................................................................................................ 3
Holidy v. State, No. PD-0622-14 (granted Aug. 20, 2014; argued and submitted Jan. 14, 2015) ............................... 3
Keehn v. State, 233 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)................................................................5
Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011) .............................................................................................5
iii Lloyd v. State, No. 05-13-01004-CR, 2014 WL 7249747 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 22, 2014) (not designated for publication) ...................................................... vi, vii, 2, 4, 5, 6
McNeil v. State, No. PD-1171-14 (filed Sep. 2, 2014)..................................................................................................3 Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013) .................................................................................... 5, 6, 7 Reeder v. State, No. PD-0601-14 (granted Aug. 20, 2014; argued and submitted Jan. 15, 2015) ............................... 3 Reeves v. State, No. PD-1048-14 (filed Aug. 20, 2014) ............................................................................................... 3
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) ................................................................................................2
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) ............................................................................................5, 6
State v. Villarreal, No. PD-0306-14, 2014 WL 6734178 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 26, 2014)................2
United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972) ................................................................................................2
Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624 (1946) ................................................................................................2
Other Authorities
Texas Driver’s Handbook, p.60 (rev. July 2012) ............................................................................................... 3
iv No. PD-0097-15
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ___________________________________________________
STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW ___________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Comes now, the State of Texas, by and through its Criminal District
Attorney, Greg Willis, and respectfully urges this Court to grant discretionary
review of the above-named cause.
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
The State requests oral argument. The constitutionality of the mandatory
blood draw statute in light of Missouri v. McNeely is a complex issue, and oral
argument will help develop the issue more fully before this Court.
v STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nicholas Lloyd was charged by indictment with Driving While Intoxicated,
third or more, a third-degree felony. CR 10. Following the denial of his motion to
suppress, he pleaded not guilty before a jury. 2 RR 226. The jury convicted him
and sentenced him to 8 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. CR 72, 78.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas held that the trial court should
have granted Lloyd’s motion to suppress and reversed the judgment. Lloyd v.
State, No. 05-13-01004-CR, 2014 WL 7249747, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 22,
2014) (not designated for publication). The State timely filed a motion for
extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review on January 23, 2015.
Tex. R. App. P. 68.2(c). The State’s petition for discretionary review is timely,
being filed within the time granted by this Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The court of appeals summarized the facts as follows:
Around 1:00 a.m. on April 27, 2012, Officer Jon Conduti of the Frisco Police Department responded to a call about a “major vehicle accident” at a residence. When he arrived, he saw appellant’s red Mercedes sitting in the yard, where it had crashed into the corner of the house. Conduti spoke with appellant, who had “a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath” and bloodshot eyes. Appellant said something about making a mistake but then declined to talk further. Appellant also refused to perform any standardized field sobriety tests without an attorney present. Conduti arrested appellant for driving
vi while intoxicated and took him to the Frisco jail for a DWI interview. At the jail, appellant refused to give a blood sample. Conduti began completing paperwork for a search warrant for a blood draw; however, when he discovered appellant had been convicted two previous times for driving while intoxicated, he stopped processing the search warrant and took appellant to the hospital for a mandatory blood draw under the authority of section 724.012 of the Texas Transportation Code. Appellant’s blood was drawn around 3:00 a.m., and he was charged with felony DWI third offense.
Before trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress, alleging the warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The State conceded the officer had no warrant but argued (1) implied consent and (2) appellant had a reduced expectation of privacy because driving is a highly regulated activity and, under the totality of the circumstances, the search was reasonable. After the hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress and admitted the evidence at trial.
Lloyd, 2014 WL 7249747, at *1.
vii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Is a warrantless, mandatory blood draw conducted pursuant to Section 724.012(b)(3)(B)—the repeat offender provision—reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?
2. Did the court of appeals err in failing to address one of the State’s arguments that would justify the warrantless blood draw?
3. Did the court of appeals err in finding there were not exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless blood draw?
REASONS FOR REVIEW
1. The Fifth Court of Appeals has decided an important question of federal law in a way that conflicts with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. See Tex. R. App. P. 66.3(c).
2. The Fifth Court of Appeals has decided an important question of state law in a way that conflicts with the applicable decisions of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 66.3(c).
3. The Fifth Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ power of supervision. See Tex. R. App. P. 66.3(f).
1 ARGUMENT
1. Is a warrantless, mandatory blood draw conducted pursuant to Section 724.012(b)(3)(B)—the repeat offender provision—reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?
The warrantless blood draw in this case pursuant to Section
724.012(b)(3)(B) of the Texas Transportation Code was reasonable under Fourth
Amendment jurisprudence and should not have been suppressed. The Fifth Court
of Appeals relied on this Court’s ruling in State v. Villarreal, No. PD-0306-14,
2014 WL 6734178, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 26, 2014), in holding that a
mandatory blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment because the implied
consent statute does not provide a valid waiver of Fourth Amendment rights.
Lloyd, 2014 WL 7249747, at *2-3. But this Court should reconsider its holding in
Villarreal and hold that a Section 724.012 mandatory blood draw is constitutional.
Although this Court noted in Villarreal that the consent exception had not
previously been applied in these precise circumstances, consent itself has long
been a “well recognized exception” to the warrant requirement. See, e.g.,
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 (1973). And the Supreme Court has
recognized that a person may consent via participation in a highly regulated
activity without the ability to revoke that consent. United States v. Biswell, 406
U.S. 311, 316 (1972); Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624, 626-27 (1946). Driving
on public roads is such a highly regulated activity, and the courts have long
2 recognized the government’s ability to impose certain restrictions in return for the
privilege of driving. And while Villarreal relied heavily on the fact that it was not
shown that the defendant was personally aware of the implied consent requirement,
a person is presumed to have knowledge of the law. Cheek v. United States, 498
U.S. 192, 199 (1991) (holding every person is presumed to know the law).
Additionally, the Texas Driver’s Handbook expressly informs both present and
prospective drivers of the implied consent law. See Texas Driver’s Handbook, p.60
(rev. July 2012). Because the consent implied under Section 724.012 provides a
valid exception to the warrant requirement, Lloyd’s motion to suppress was
properly denied.
Review should be granted in this case because the same issue is pending
before this Court in numerous other cases. The State’s motion for rehearing in
Villarreal remains pending. Additionally, this Court has already granted review on
similar issues in Holidy v. State, No. PD-0622-14 (granted Aug. 20, 2014; argued
and submitted Jan. 14, 2015); Reeder v. State, No. PD-0601-14 (granted Aug. 20,
2014; argued and submitted Jan. 15, 2015); and Douds v. State, No. PD-0857-14
(granted Sep. 17, 2014). Petitions for discretionary review are pending before this
Court in other cases, including Flores v. State, No. PD-0071-15 (filed Feb. 17,
2015); McNeil v. State, No. PD-1171-14 (filed Sep. 2, 2014); and Reeves v. State,
3 No. PD-1048-14 (filed Aug. 20, 2014). Lloyd’s conviction here should not be
reversed while the law at issue remains under consideration by this Court.
2. Did the court of appeals err in failing to address one of the State’s arguments that would justify the warrantless blood draw? 3. Did the court of appeals err in finding there were not exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless blood draw?
The court of appeals also erred in rejecting the State’s argument that exigent
circumstances justified the blood draw even without regard to Section 724.012. In
its opinion, the court of appeals discussed the arguments raised in Section III of the
State’s brief, which argued that “sufficient aggravating factors” such as Lloyd’s
prior convictions and refusal to consent to field sobriety tests or a breath test
justified the blood draw. Lloyd, 2014 WL 7249747, at *3-4. But that section was
an extension of the State’s argument that the Section 724.012 mandatory blood
draw was constitutional. The State also, however, raised an independent exigent
circumstances argument in Section IV of its brief. State’s Brief at 23-28. The
exigent circumstances raised included the length of time the officer was required to
investigate a “major vehicle accident” before transporting Lloyd to the hospital, the
difficulty in obtaining a warrant in the early morning hours, and the additional time
involved in obtaining a warrant. The court of appeals never addressed the State’s
arguments on this matter and accordingly never determined whether the facts
raised in this case amounted to exigent circumstances. An appellate court is
4 required to address “every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the
appeal.” Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; Keehn v. State, 233 S.W.3d 348, 349 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). Because the State raised an independent argument that would support
the trial court’s decision regardless of the applicability of Section 724.012, the
appellate court was required to address that ground in its opinion. Because it did
not, this case should be reversed and remanded to the Fifth Court of Appeals for
consideration of that issue.
Furthermore, to the extent that the court of appeals addressed the exigent
circumstances argument, it erred in finding that no exigent circumstances existed.
Although not addressing the State’s arguments on the issue, the court of appeals
broadly held that “no exigent circumstances existed which would justify a
warrantless search.” Lloyd, 2014 WL 7249747, at * 3. A warrantless search may be
conducted where “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law
enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment.” Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558 (2013),
quoting Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1856 (2011). One such exigency is to
prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. at 1559.
The natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream is a relevant, though
not dispositive, factor in determining exigent circumstances. In Schmerber v.
California, the Supreme Court held that the dissipation of alcohol in a
5 circumstance where the officer had already been significantly delayed in
investigating the scene of an accident and transporting the defendant to the hospital
was a reasonable exigent circumstance. 384 U.S. 757, 770 (1966). In McNeely, the
Supreme Court concluded that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream
was not an exigent circumstance per se. 133 S.Ct. at 1562, 1568. But the McNeely
court nonetheless recognized that other factors, such as the inability to secure a
magistrate to obtain a warrant following a late-night arrest and “time-consuming
formalities” in obtaining a warrant, may still provide exigencies. Id. at 1562-63.
In the instant case, there were exigent circumstances that justified a
warrantless blood draw. As in Schmerber and unlike McNeely, this case involved a
major accident—Appellant crashed his vehicle into the corner of a house—that
required significant investigation by the officer. Lloyd, 2014 WL 7249747, at *1.
Indeed, the trial court expressly found that the case was not a “typical DWI” and
spoke at length about its distinguishing features. 2 RR 222-27. This case involved a
greater passage of time at the scene than in McNeely. Even acting without a
warrant, Lloyd’s blood was not drawn until more than two hours after the officer
was dispatched. Id. Additionally, the accident occurred in the early morning hours
when a judge would less likely be available. See McNeely, 133 S.Ct. at 1562.
Furthermore, Appellant initially fled the scene following the accident, refused to
participate in field sobriety tests, and refused to provide a blood sample. 2 RR 73,
6 77-78; 3 RR 33, 44, 48. The trial court expressly found that these were “extra
circumstances that [were] thwarting the police investigation” and added to the
exigency of the situation. 2 RR 225. These are precisely the “practical problems of
obtaining a warrant within a timeframe that still preserves the opportunity to obtain
reliable evidence” discussed in McNeely. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. at 1568. The court of
appeals erred in finding there were not exigent circumstances sufficient to support
a warrantless blood draw.
7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The State prays that the Court grant the State’s petition and set the case for
submission, reverse the judgment of the Fifth Court of Appeals, and affirm the
judgment of the trial court, or alternatively, remand the case for consideration of
the State’s exigent circumstances argument.
Respectfully submitted,
GREG WILLIS Criminal District Attorney Collin County, Texas
JOHN R. ROLATER, JR. Assistant Criminal District Attorney Chief of the Appellate Division
/s/ Andrea L. Westerfeld ANDREA L. WESTERFELD Assistant Criminal District Attorney 2100 Bloomdale Rd., Ste. 200 McKinney, Texas 75071 State Bar No. 24042143 (972) 548-4323 FAX (214) 491-4860 awesterfeld@co.collin.tx.us
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true copy of the State’s Petition for Discretionary Review has been
electronically served on counsel for Appellant, Stephanie Hudson, and a courtesy
copy emailed to smhudson@gmail.com, and a true copy served on the Honorable
Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 13046, Capitol Station,
Austin, Texas 78711-3046, Lisa.McMinn@spa.state.tx.us, on this, the 20th day of
February, 2015.
/s/ Andrea L. Westerfeld Andrea L. Westerfeld
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This brief complies with the word limitations in Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.4(i)(2). In reliance on the word count of the computer program used to
prepare this brief, the undersigned attorney certifies that this brief contains 1,814
words, exclusive of the sections of the brief exempted by Rule 9.4(i)(1).
9 APPENDIX
Opinion of the Fifth Court of Appeals Lloyd v. State, S.W.3d --- (2014)
Cases that cite this headnote 2014 WL 7249747 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. OPINION [2] AutomobHes Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. Taking of blood of defendant who was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) was not Nicolas Stephen Lloyd, Appellant justified by any recognized exception to the v. warrant requirement, and thus the warrantless, The State of Texas, Appellee nonconsensual blood draw violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, even though the state No. os-13-o1oo4-CR pointed to defendant's two prior convictions for Opinion Filed December 22, 2014 DWI, his refusal to engage in sobriety tests, and his refusal to consent to a voluntary blood Synopsis draw; the circumstances identified by the state Background: Defendant was convicted in the 401 st Judicial were simply those that invoked the statute on District Court, Collin County, of driving while intoxicated mandatory blood draws. U.S. Const Amend 4; (DWI) third offense. He appealed a denial of his motion to Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 724.012. suppress the results of a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw. Cases that cite this headnote
[3] Searches and Seizures Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Francis, J., held that: "Exigent circumstances" that provide an [1] any implied consent to a blood draw that defendant was exception to the warrant requirement are those deemed to have given under implied-consent law did not exigencies of the situation that make the categorically extinguish defendant's Fourth Amendment right needs of law enforcement so compelling that to withdraw consent to a warrantless search, and a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; these include [2] the blood draw was not justified by any recognized the threat of imminent removal or destruction exception to the warrant requirement of evidence, threat to human life, rendering emergency assistance to injured occupants, or Reversed and remanded hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect U.S. Const Amend4.
Cases that cite this headnote West Headnotes (4) [4] AutomobHes [1] AutomobHes 'i:);;o In those drunk-driving investigations where Any implied consent to a blood draw that police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant defendant was deemed to have given under before a blood sample can be drawn without implied-consent law did not categorically significantly undermining the efficacy of the extinguish defendant's Fourth Amendment right search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that to withdraw consent to a warrantless search. U.S. they do so. U.S. Const. Amend 4. Canst Amend 4; Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § Cases that cite this headnote 724.012.
\Vestla'.'INexr © 2015 Thomson F~.euters. No cia 1m to original U.S. Government Works. Lloyd v. State, - S.W.3d - (2014)
appellant had been convicted two previous times for driving while intoxicated, he stopped processing the search warrant On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court, Collin and took appellant to the hospital for a mandatory blood County, Te:us, Trial Court Cause No. 401-81624-2012. draw under the authority of section 724.012 of the Texas Mark J. Rusch, Judge. Transportation Code. Appellant's blood was drawn around 3:00a.m., and he was charged with felony DWI third offense. Attorneys and Law Firms
Stephanie Hudson, Allen, TX, for Appellant. Before trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress, alleging the warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw was a violation Greg Willis, Calli Bailey, John R. Rolater, Zeke Fortenberry, of his Fourth Amendment rights. The State conceded the Geetangali Y. Singletary, McKinney, TX, for Appellee. officer had no warrant but argued (1) implied consent and (2) appellant had a reduced expectation of privacy because 1 Before Justices Francis, Lang, and Stoddart driving is a highly regulated activity and, under the totality of the circumstances, the search was reasonable. After the hearing, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress and admitted the evidence at trial. While this appeal was OPINION pending, the court of criminal appeals issued its opinion in State v. Villarreal, No. PD-0306--14,- S.W.3d--, 2014 Opinion by Justice Francis WL 6734178 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 26, 2014), addressing *1 Nicolas Stephen Lloyd appeals the trial court's order involuntary blood draws taken under the authority of the denying his motion to suppress the results of a warrantless, Texas Transportation Code. nonconsensual blood draw. At trial, appellant stipulated to having been convicted twice previously of driving In a single issue, appellant claims the trial cowt erred by while intoxicated, and the evidence of his blood alcohol denying his motion to suppress. He claims that, because he concentration was admitted. A jury convicted him of driving did not consent to the blood draw and the State did not while intoxicated third offense, found he used or exhibited a have a warrant to draw his blood, the search was reasonable deadly weapon (a motor vehicle), and assessed punishment only if the State could show exigent circumstances. Because at eight years in prison and a $2000 fine. In a single the State did not do so, appellant claims the search violated issue, appellant claims the trial court erred by denying his his Fourth Amendment rights, the motion should have been motion to suppress because the warrantless, nonconsensual granted, and the blood alcohol concentration evidence should blood draw constituted an unconstitutional search and seizure have been suppressed. and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We agree with appellant. We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand *2 We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress this case for further proceedings. evidence under a bifurcated standard State v. Kerwick, 393 S.W.3d 270, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). We grant almost Around 1:00 a.m. on April 27, 2012, Officer Jon Conduti total deference to the trial court's determinations of historical of the Frisco Police Department responded to a call about facts and mixed questions of law and fact that rely on a ''major vehicle accidenf' at a residence. When he arrived, credibility when supported by the record Id. But when mixed he saw appellant's red Mercedes sitting in the yard, where it questions of law and fact do not depend on the evaluation of had crashed into the comer of the house. Conduti spoke with credibility and demeanor, we review the trial court's ruling de appellant, who had "a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his novo.Jd. breath'' and bloodshot eyes. Appellant said something about making a mistake but then declined to talk further. Appellant The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently addressed also refused to perform any standardized field sobriety tests whether a warrantless, nonconsensual testing of a DWI without an attorney present Conduti arrested appellant for suspect's blood violates the suspect's Fourth Amendment driving while intoxicated and took him to the Frisco jail for a rights. Villarreal.- S.W.3d --,2014 WL 6734178. In DWI interview. At the jail, appellant refused to give a blood that case, a police officer stopped Villarreal for a traffic sample. Conduti began completing paperwork for a search violation. ld. at - - , at •1. When Villarreal displayed signs warrant for a blood draw; however, when he discovered of intoxication, the officer asked him to perform standardized
WestlawNexr © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Lloyd v. State,- S.W.3d- (2014)
field sobriety tests, but Villarreal refused. /d. The officer then the right to a warrant in these limited arrested Villarreal on suspicion ofDWI and gave him written circumstances. The deal is sealed statutory warnings requesting a blood specimen. Again, when he gets behind the wheel, and Villarreal refused. /d. After a criminal history check revealed it can't later be revoked when he Villarreal had been previously convicted of DWI several gets caught driving in an impaired times, the officer took Villarreal to a hospital for a mandatory condition. blood draw under section 724.012 of the transportation code. *3 Id. at - - , at *11. The court stated that to constitute a Id at--, at *2. valid waiver of Fourth Amendment rights through consent, After he was indicted for felony DWI, Villarreal filed a a suspect's consent to search must be freely and voluntarily motion to suppress stating there was no deemed consent to given; an "additional necessary element of valid consent is the taking of a blood specimen. Id. The trial court conducted the ability to limit or revoke it" /d. Implied consent that an evidentiary hearing; the officer, the sole witness at the has been withdrawn or revoked is not a substitute for the hearing, testified he "could have" obtained a warrant, but voluntary consent required by the Fourth Amendment Id believed he "did not statutorily have to" in light of the The record clearly showed Villarreal refused consent. The mandatory-blood~w provision in the code. ld. He said court concluded an "explicit refusal to submit to blood testing his decision to require the blood draw was based solely on overrides the existence of any implied consent" Id the statutory authorization and not on any emergency at the scene or the existence of exigent circumstances. /d. The trial The court of criminal appeals then considered whether any court granted Villarreal's motion to suppress, and the court of "other justification for the search applie[d]." Addressing appeals affirmed. Id at--, at *1. The State filed a petition known exceptions to the warrant requirement, including for discretionary review, alleging the trial court and the court the automobile exception and search incident to arrest, the of appeals erred by concluding the warrantless search of court concluded the blood draw did not fall under any Villarreal's blood violated the Fourth Amendment and that the recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Id at mandatory blood draw statute does not dispose of the warrant - - - - - , at *12-16. The court also rejected the State's requirement Id argument that the search could be upheld as reasonable under a general Fourth Amendment balancing test. Id at On petition for discretionary review, the court of criminal - - - - - , at *16--19. In sum, the court concluded "the appeals noted that, as a general rule, to eomply with the Fourth provisions in the Transportation Code do not, taken by Amendment, a search of a person in a criminal investigation themselves, form a constitutionally valid alternative to the (1) requires a search warrant or a recognized exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement" Id at - - , at the warrant requirement and (2) must be reasonable under *20. The court of criminal appeals affirmed the trial court's the totality of the circumstances. /d. at - - , at *8. The granting of Villarreal's motion to suppress the blood alcohol Fourth Amendment is implicated in DWI cases because concentration evidence. /d. at--, at *21. the collection of a suspect's blood invades a substantial privacy interest, and the exigent circumstances exception In our case, appellant refused to perform standardized to the search-warrant requirement is not established merely field sobriety tests and refused to consent to a blood by the natural dissipation of alcohol. /d. The court of sample. Although Conduti began completing a search warrant criminal appeals then concluded that, because Villarreal did affidavit for a blood draw, he abandoned the search warrant not consent and the warrantless blood draw under section upon discovering appellant had been convicted two previous 724.012 did not fall under any of the proffered exceptions times for DWI. The officer estimated it usually took about one to the warrant requirement, the search violated his Fourth and one-half hours to complete a warrant and get it signed Amendment rights. Id During that time, they ''would have lost some of the evidence of the alcohol in the Defendant's body." Conduti said the In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected the State's only reason he stopped processing the warrant was because argument that, with respect to a roadside DWI stop, a driver: he discovered ~llant's prior convictions and, under the transportation cOde, he did not need a warrant The reasons he impliedly agrees ahead of time that, in thought he could bypass the warrant process were because (1) exchange for the privilege of driving the transportation code allowed him to and (2) "the alcohol on our roads, he is willing to waive was dissipating."
\NestlawNexr © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Lloyd v. State, -S.W.3d -(2014)
threat to human life, rendering emergency assistance to injured occupants, or hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. See [1] On appeal, the State argues appellant gave "implied Kentucky v. King, - U.S. - - , 131 S.Ct 1849, 1856, consent'' which was irrevocable "as a person twice 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011}. However, as a general rule, the previously convicted of driving while intoxicated" and "context of blood testing is different in critical respects from sufficient aggravating factors were present to satisfy the other destruction-of-evidence cases in which police are truly exigent circumstances requirement With respect to the first confronted with a 'now or never' situation." Missouri v. argument, the court of criminal appeals already considered and rejected this precise argument See Villan-eal, - McNeely, -U.S.--, 133 S.Ct 1552, 1561, 185 L.Ed.2d S.W.3d at--, 2014 WL 6734178, at *II ("To the extent the 696 (2013}. Such cases should be considered on a case-by- State suggests that the implied-consent and mandatory-blood- case assessment of exigency, not a categorical rule. Id In fact, draw provisions in the Transportation Code categorically in ''those drunk-driving investigations where police officers extinguish a DWI suspect's right to withdraw consent when can reasonably !)btain a warrant before a blood sample can some aggravating circumstance is present, that suggestion be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of cannot be squared with the requirement that, to be valid for the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so." Fourth Amendment purposes, consent must be freely and ld. The factors the State relies on are simply those factors voluntarily given based on the totality of the circumstances, that invoke the mandatory blood draw statute. See TEX. and must not have been revoked or withdrawn at the time of TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 724.012 (West 2011}. Because the search."}. We reject this portion of the State's argument no exigent circumstances existed which would justify a warrantless search, we reject this argument as well. [2] [3] [4] Next, the State argues "sufficient aggravating factors," specifically appellant's two prior convictions, his *4 Appellant did not consent to the draw and the taking refusal to engage in sobriety tests, and his refusal to consent of his blood did not fall under another recognized exception to a voluntary blood draw, satisfied the exigent circumstances to the warrant requirement We therefore conclude the requirement These factors are not exigent circumstances that warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw violated appellant's provide an exception to the warrant requirement; exigent Fourth Amendment rights. See McNeely, 133 S.Ct at 1561- circumstances are those "exigencies of the situation" that 63; Villarreal, - S.W.3d at - - , 2014 WL 6734178, ''make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] at *20. The trial court abused its discretion by denying warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth appellant's motion. We reverse the trial court's judgment and Amendment" Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 394, 98 S.Ct. remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978}. These include, for example, opinion. the threat of imminent removal or destruction of evidence,
Footnotes 1 Th~ Honorable !ustice Craig Stoddart succeeded the Honorable Jim Moseley, a member of the original panel Justice Stoddart has revtewed the briefs and record before the Court.
End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
VVestlavvNexr © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 2/26/2015 Envelope Details
Print this page
Case # PD009715 Case Information Location Court Of Criminal Appeals Date Filed 02/20/2015 03:48:51 PM Case Number PD009715 Case Description Assigned to Judge Attorney Andrea Westerfeld Firm Name Collin County District Attorney Filed By Crissy Hinojosa Filer Type Not Applicable Fees Convenience Fee $0.00 Total Court Case Fees $0.00 Total Court Filing Fees $0.00 Total Court Service Fees $0.00 Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00 Total Service Tax Fees $0.00 Total Provider Service Fees $0.00 Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00 Grand Total $0.00 Payment Account Name Waiver Transaction Amount $0.00 Transaction Response Transaction ID Order #
Petition for Discretionary Review Filing Type EFileAndServe Filing Code Petition for Discretionary Review STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY Filing Description REVIEW Reference Number Please note that the State request oral argument. Comments Thank youCrissy Hinojosa Status Rejected Fees
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=20ae432370b741879f98aae0b31647b9 1/2 2/26/2015 Envelope Details
Court Fee $0.00 Service Fee $0.00 Rejection Information Rejection Time Rejection Comment Reason 02/26/2015 The petition for discretionary review does not contain the identity of Judge, Other 11:14:16 Parties and Counsel [Rule 68.4(a)]. You have ten days to tender a corrected AM petition. Documents Lead Document Lloyd, Nicholas Stephen PD009715 (PDR).pdf [Original]
eService Details Date/Time Name/Email Firm Service Type Status Served Opened Stephanie Hudson 02/20/2015 EServe Sent Yes smdhudson@gmail.com 03:53:37 PM Lisa McMinn 02/20/2015 EServe Sent Yes Lisa.McMinn@spa.state.tx.us 03:53:49 PM
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=20ae432370b741879f98aae0b31647b9 2/2