Burks, Gene Allen
PD-0157-15
| Tex. App. | Mar 13, 2015Background
- Burks was convicted felon with a felony-repetition DWI and sentenced to ten years’ confinement (probated).
- Officers stopped Burks for traffic-related indications and arrested him based on probable cause of intoxication.
- Blood was drawn under Texas Transportation Code §724.012(b) (implied-consent) without Burks’s consent and without a warrant.
- Trial court denied the motion to suppress; the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed, holding the statutory blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The State seeks discretionary review, arguing the statutory compelled-draw framework is reasonable and excluded from suppression, relying on Villarreal and McNeely, among others.
- The Court of Appeals held that the warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw under §724.012(b) violated the Fourth Amendment and Burks’s conviction was to be remanded for suppression of the blood-test results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §724.012(b) warrantless blood draw violate the Fourth Amendment? | Burks argues constitutionally impermissible compelled sampling. | State contends implied-consent statute codifies Fourth Amendment principles and supports reasonableness. | Yes, the warrantless draw violated the Fourth Amendment. |
| Is a Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard limited to warrant-preference exceptions? | Burks argues reasonableness balanced with statutory framework suffices. | State argues warrant-preference exceptions govern reasonableness. | Reasonableness requires more than warrant-preference exceptions; balancing applied. |
| Do exclusionary rule principles mandate suppression of the blood evidence? | Burks seeks suppression under exclusionary rule. | State argues no suppression under article 38.23(a) because not a violation at time of seizure. | Suppression appropriate; exclusionary rule not applicable to this pre-McNeely context under the Court’s analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness and implied consent considered in Texas)
- Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957) (Per se reasonableness of implied-consent testing under certain conditions)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (Good-faith reliance on statutory/precedential basis for exclusion)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 342 (1987) (Exclusionary rule limitations when police rely on later-invalidated statutes)
- McGruder v. State, No. 10-13-109-CR, S.W.3d (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Precedent on Fourth Amendment reasonableness balancing)
- Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (Roadside tests and balancing of privacy vs. state interests)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (Blood tests and exigency analysis in Fourth Amendment)
- Segundo v. State, 270 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Reasonableness balancing in DUI/search contexts)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (Special-needs and balancing considerations for testing)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. _ (2013) (Natural dissipation of alcohol and compelled bloodstream testing)
- Reeder v. State, 428 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (McNeely-related issues and Texas implied consent)