603 S.W.3d 485
Tex. App.2020Background
- Appellant Chad Christopher Jacobson was stopped for traffic infractions, showed signs of intoxication, and was arrested for DWI.
- Officers obtained a warrant based on probable cause to draw Jacobson’s blood; medical personnel drew the sample at a hospital.
- Laboratory testing of the sample produced a BAC of 0.124; the blood kit and test results were introduced at trial over objection.
- Jacobson objected that the warrant only authorized the blood draw and that a separate warrant was required to analyze the sample for alcohol concentration.
- The trial court overruled the objection, convicted Jacobson of DWI, and sentenced him to 90 days (suspended) and a fine; Jacobson appealed on the single issue whether a second warrant was required.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether Jacobson retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sample such that testing would require a separate warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether testing a blood sample drawn pursuant to a warrant requires a separate warrant | Jacobson: Martinez means drawing and testing are separate Fourth Amendment searches; even if police lawfully obtain the sample, a new warrant is required to test it | State: Martinez involved blood drawn for medical reasons; when blood is drawn under a warrant for DWI, defendant no longer has a privacy interest—testing for BAC needs no new warrant; warrant not overbroad | Court: Martinez doesn’t require a second warrant here; no reasonable expectation of privacy remained in a sample drawn under a warrant for DWI, so testing for BAC was lawful; general-warrant challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martinez, 570 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (held there can be a privacy expectation in blood drawn for medical purposes and that testing such a sample required judicial authorization)
- State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (described stages of privacy interests in blood: draw, control/testing, and test results)
- State v. Huse, 491 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (addressed expectation of privacy in test results)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (recognized physical intrusion of a blood draw implicates deep-rooted privacy interests)
- State v. Randall, 930 N.W.2d 223 (Wis. 2019) (concluded lawful seizure of blood removes privacy expectation in that sample so that testing for the seized evidence does not require a separate warrant)