Antonio Salazar Jr. v. the State of Texas
05-20-00069-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 31, 2022Background
- Early morning collision; Salazar found by his damaged pickup and admitted he had been driving. Officer observed missing front-left wheel and crash-related scene evidence.
- Salazar told officer he drank six to eight beers earlier; officer administered field sobriety tests and observed "clues" of intoxication, then arrested him for DWI.
- At the jail, Salazar refused breath/blood testing; officer obtained a magistrate warrant to draw his blood.
- Blood drawn at the hospital tested at 0.133 g/100 mL. Salazar moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing the warrant authorized only collection, not testing, and that the affidavit was defective.
- Trial court denied suppression and also refused Salazar’s request for an article 38.23 probable-cause jury instruction. Jury convicted; Salazar appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrant authorizing blood draw also authorizes chemical testing of that blood | Warrant authorized only collection; separate warrant required to test blood | Magistrate’s probable-cause finding to seize blood implicitly authorized chemical testing; separate testing warrant not required | Denied relief — testing authorized; no separate warrant required (Crider controlling) |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing article 38.23 probable-cause jury instruction | There was a disputed factual issue whether field sobriety "clues" sufficed for probable cause, so jury should decide admissibility | Facts about how tests were conducted and observed were undisputed; sufficiency for probable cause is a legal question for the court, not a jury | Denied relief — no affirmative disputed historical fact; court did not err in refusing the instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Crider v. State, 607 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (magistrate probable-cause finding to seize blood suffices to justify chemical testing)
- State v. Staton, 599 S.W.3d 614 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020) (review standard for suppression rulings; cited for related reasoning)
- State v. Ruiz, 577 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (bifurcated review standard for suppression issues)
- Jones v. State, 608 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020) (distinguishing prior precedent and supporting that testing is authorized when warrant obtained for blood draw)
- Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (article 38.23 instruction required only if affirmative evidence raises a disputed historical fact material to admissibility)
- Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (legality of arrest/search is a question of law when essential facts are undisputed)