Blocker, Gordon Stanley, PD-0441-15

Background

On Nov. 12, 2011 Gordon Blocker was investigated after his vehicle struck a parked car; officers located him in a parking lot and arrested him for DWI.
Officer Truly prepared an affidavit seeking a warrant to draw Blocker’s blood; the affidavit described observed signs (swaying, stumbling, slurred speech, HGN and other SFST clues) and reported breath results of .028/.029 and an alleged later refusal of blood.
The trial court denied Blocker’s suppression motion and a magistrate issued the blood-draw warrant; Blocker pled guilty with permission to appeal and challenged the sufficiency of the affidavit.
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning the affidavit, read in common-sense totality, provided a substantial basis for probable cause to obtain blood.
Blocker petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals arguing the affidavit was rife with conclusory, unattributed statements and that the court of appeals failed to address his specific arguments and controlling precedents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit provided probable cause for a blood-draw warrant	Blocker: affidavit contains conclusory, unattributed statements; it fails to show he operated a vehicle while intoxicated or that blood would show intoxication	State: affidavit’s totality (officer observations, SFST results, breath readings, purported refusal) permits reasonable inferences that probable cause existed	Court of Appeals: affirmed — magistrate could reasonably infer, under totality and common-sense review, a fair probability blood would show evidence of DWI
Whether magistrate may rely on officer conclusions and inferences not expressly supported in affidavit	Blocker: magistrate cannot credit bare conclusions or fill gaps by inventing facts; many affidavit statements lack source or foundation	State: magistrate may draw reasonable inferences from the facts in the four corners and give deference to officer training/experience	Court of Appeals: disagreed with Blocker — held magistrate could infer officers’ knowledge/training and rely on the affidavit as a whole to reach probable cause
Whether low breath results (.028/.029) defeat probable cause for later blood test	Blocker: such low breath values are inconsistent with marked SFST impairments and do not support a fair probability blood would show intoxication	State: breath results plus observed impairment and SFST performance reasonably support further testing by blood	Court of Appeals: held totality allows inference that blood might confirm impairment despite low breath readings
Whether appellate court failed to address issues required by rule	Blocker: court of appeals ignored and did not explain rejection of his cited controlling authorities and arguments	State: (implicit) opinion adequately explains why magistrate could infer probable cause from the affidavit	Court of Appeals: panel did not find reversible error; opinion treated affidavit in common-sense totality and affirmed (Court of Criminal Appeals petition argues the appellate opinion failed to address key precedents)

Key Cases Cited

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1978) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith limitation on exclusionary rule; magistrate must perform neutral review)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (affidavit must set forth facts underlying probable cause; false statements may trigger hearing)
Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (affidavit cannot have material facts read into it; inferences must be grounded in four corners)
Davis v. State, 202 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (too many inferences makes affidavit tenuous, not substantial)
Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (magistrate may interpret affidavit in common-sense manner and draw reasonable inferences)
Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (police opinions require supporting facts and circumstances to be reliable)
Gordon v. State, 801 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (conclusory statements lacking factual basis are insufficient for probable cause)
Rumsey v. State, 675 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (an officer’s bare personal-knowledge conclusions must be supported by facts in affidavit)