Ana Licia Bravo v. State, 08-14-00160-CR

Background

On April 8, 2012, Bravo was identified by eyewitnesses as the driver who fled an accident; officers detected alcohol and took her to a hospital where she was arrested for DWI after failing SFSTs.
Officers requested a blood draw; Bravo refused, no warrant was sought, and officers did not obtain express consent. An on‑duty phlebotomist drew Bravo’s blood after an officer cited the Texas Transportation Code’s mandatory/blood‑draw provision.
Bravo moved pretrial to suppress the blood evidence; the trial court denied the motion and later admitted the blood test results at trial showing BAC over the legal limit.
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s McNeely decision and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ Villarreal decision, Bravo renewed suppression; the trial court again denied the motion.
On appeal, the El Paso Court of Appeals found the warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment because the Transportation Code alone does not supply an exception to the warrant requirement, and no other exception was shown.
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the improperly admitted blood evidence likely contributed to the conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw under Tex. Transp. Code §724.012(b) is constitutional	Bravo: The warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment absent a recognized exception	State: The Transportation Code’s mandatory‑draw provision authorized the draw; McNeely is inapplicable or narrow	Held: Reversed — the statute alone does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment; no exception shown, so seizure unconstitutional
Whether McNeely limits the exigency analysis so officers could rely on dissipation alone	Bravo: McNeely requires case‑by‑case exigency analysis; dissipation alone insufficient	State: McNeely addressed exigency only and should not bar statutory mandatory draws	Held: Reversed — McNeely means dissipation is not per se exigency; warrant or applicable exception required
Whether officers’ good‑faith reliance on then‑existing law cures the error	Bravo: Newly announced rules must apply on direct review and do not permit retroactive good‑faith save	State: Officers reasonably relied on statute; evidence should be admissible	Held: Rejected — Griffith requires application of new constitutional rule on direct appeal; good‑faith reliance insufficient
Harmless‑error analysis: Did improper admission of blood evidence affect verdict?	Bravo: Admission was harmful because conviction relied on BAC evidence	State: (Implicit) Error harmless or outweighed by other evidence	Held: Not harmless — cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not contribute to conviction; reversal required

Key Cases Cited

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (involuntary blood draw is a search; exigency analysis justified a warrantless draw in that case)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (dissipation of alcohol alone does not create a per se exigency; exigency must be assessed case‑by‑case)
State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Texas mandatory‑blood‑draw statute does not, by itself, satisfy Fourth Amendment warrant requirement)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (newly announced constitutional rules apply retroactively on direct review)