Antonio Aviles v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8508
Tex. App.2014Background
- Aviles was arrested for DWI after erratic driving observed by Officer Rios.
- Officer Rios administered three standardized field sobriety tests showing signs of intoxication.
- Rios learned Aviles had two prior DWI convictions and sought a blood sample after Aviles declined a breath or blood sample.
- Section 724.012(b)(3)(B) authorized taking a blood sample if the suspect has two or more prior DWI convictions, without a warrant.
- The blood draw occurred without a warrant; the trial court denied the suppression motion, and Aviles pled nolo contendere to DWI.
- On remand after the Supreme Court remanded in light of McNeely, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless blood draw under §724.012(b)(3)(B) complies with the Fourth Amendment post-McNeely. | Aviles argues McNeely requires considering totality, not per se exceptions. | State urges a balancing or regulatory approach is permissible. | Not per se; totality-of-the-circumstances governs; statute not a per se exception. |
| Whether the implied consent and mandatory blood draw statutes are per se exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. | Weems rejects per se validity of §724.011 and §724.012 as warrant-exceptions. | State urges these statutes as permissible regulatory exceptions. | These statutes are not per se exceptions under McNeely; must assess case-specific totality. |
| Whether the State proved a permissible warrant exception for the blood draw or failed the due process under totality. | State did not establish a valid exception because §724.012(b)(3)(B) is invalid post-McNeely. | Argues statute supports public safety interests. | State failed to prove a valid warrant exception; blood draw unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeely v. Missouri, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (dismantled per se rules for warrantless blood testing; require totality of circumstances)
- Weems v. State, 2014 WL 2532299 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (held §724.011 and §724.012 not per se exceptions; totality approach required)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (great deference to trial court on historical facts; legal question de novo)
- Dixon v. State, 206 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reasonable search under totality of circumstances; standards of review)
- Gutierrez v. State, 221 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (exception analysis to warrant requirement)