Cole, Steven
PD-0077-15
| Tex. | Jul 21, 2015Background
- Appellant Steven Cole was convicted after a warrantless blood draw following a DWI stop in Gregg County; blood tested positive for methamphetamine only.
- The toxicology expert testified about "therapeutic" levels and could not say Cole was intoxicated; record lacked evidence about methamphetamine dissipation rates.
- The Court of Appeals evaluated whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw under the Fourth Amendment using the totality-of-the-circumstances approach from Missouri v. McNeely.
- Appellant contends the Court of Appeals properly analyzed exigency and that Texas statutory implied-consent/mandatory-draw provisions do not authorize warrantless blood draws.
- The State argues the results should be admissible based on exigent circumstances or under a good-faith exception; appellant urges the Court of Criminal Appeals to affirm the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw | Court of Appeals properly applied McNeely totality test; no per se exigency from alleged dissipation here | Warrantless draw was reasonable given probable cause and circumstances | Court of Appeals applied McNeely; exigency must be case-specific (no per se rule) |
| 2. Whether a warrantless blood draw is permitted by Texas Transportation Code implied-consent/mandatory-draw provisions | Statutory scheme does not override Fourth Amendment; Villarreal supports that statutes don’t create a warrant exception | Statute authorizes compulsory blood draws after arrests for intoxication offenses | State v. Villarreal holds Texas statutory implied-consent/mandatory-draw provisions do not eliminate Fourth Amendment warrant requirement |
| 3. Whether absence of evidence about methamphetamine dissipation undermines exigency claim | No evidence showing delay would degrade probative value; dissipation of methamphetamine was not established | Dissipation can create exigency justifying a prompt draw | Without evidence of dissipation rate in the record, exigency based on methamphetamine was not established under the totality test |
| 4. Whether a good-faith exception saves the warrantless blood draw evidence | Texas does not recognize a broad good-faith exception based on reliance on law or precedent | Federal good-faith doctrines or reliance arguments should prevent exclusion | Texas good-faith rule is statutory and limited to reliance on a warrant; broader federal-style good-faith exception not available in Texas |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (exigency for warrantless blood draws requires case-by-case totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to the states)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (exclusionary rule is a last-resort deterrent)
- Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969) (exclusionary rule fashioned to deter government overreach)
- Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.) (Texas good-faith exception is statutory and narrower than federal doctrine)
- Howard v. State, 617 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. Crim. App.) (declining to expand Texas good-faith exception using federal precedent)