Cole v. State
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 84
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Late-night collision in Longview: Cole ran a red light in a heavy pickup, T‑boned Hightower, whose truck exploded; Hightower died instantly. Cole was removed from his burning vehicle and transported to the hospital.
- Officers at scene observed heavy fire, a block‑long debris field, and significant hazards requiring extended scene security and traffic control; investigation/cleanup continued until morning.
- Cole told EMS he had taken “some meth,” showed signs consistent with methamphetamine intoxication, and refused a voluntary blood draw after being arrested.
- Lead investigator Higginbotham spent about three hours reconstructing the crash before forming probable cause; he testified he could not leave the scene and that obtaining a warrant would take ~1–1.5 hours.
- Officer Wright requested hospital staff draw Cole’s blood; it was obtained without a warrant ~42 minutes after arrest and later tested positive for amphetamine/methamphetamine.
- Trial court denied suppression (found exigent circumstances); court of appeals reversed (found no exigency and noted lack of attempt to obtain a warrant); this Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cole) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless blood draw violated Fourth Amendment absent exigency | Warrant required; State failed to prove exigent circumstances; officers could have obtained a warrant (magistrate on call; other officers available) | Exigency existed because (1) natural dissipation of drug evidence, (2) practical scene constraints made obtaining a warrant impractical, and (3) medical treatment could alter blood results | Court held exigent‑circumstances justified the warrantless draw under totality of circumstances; reversed court of appeals |
| Whether Texas Transportation Code §724.012(b) alone authorizes warrantless draws | Statute cannot substitute for constitutional warrant | State argued statutory framework and aggregate considerations support reasonableness | Court reaffirmed prior holding that statute alone does not displace Fourth Amendment; exigency analysis controls |
| Proper temporal lens for exigency analysis: hindsight vs. on‑scene perspective | Review should not rely on hypothetical timeline or 20/20 hindsight to reject exigency | Reasonableness judged from officer’s contemporaneous perspective; practical constraints matter | Court rejected hindsight timeline used by court of appeals and applied objective on‑scene perspective |
| Relevance of availability of other officers / magistrate | Presence of other officers or an on‑call magistrate negates exigency unless State proves none were available | Availability is relevant but not dispositive; courts should not micromanage local staffing decisions; State need not prove absolute unavailability of all other officers | Court held availability is a factor but not fatal where record shows officers at scene were needed to secure public safety and investigation and obtaining a warrant would have been impractical |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (recognized exigency where delay to obtain warrant threatened destruction of blood‑alcohol evidence)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create per se exigency; exigency is totality‑of‑circumstances inquiry)
- State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (Texas Transportation Code does not by itself displace Fourth Amendment warrant requirement)