607 S.W.3d 305
Tex. Crim. App.2020Background
- Robert Lee Crider Jr.'s blood was drawn under a search warrant during a DWI investigation; the warrant authorized transporting him to a medical professional, drawing blood in an officer's presence, and delivering the sample to the officer.
- The warrant was silent as to laboratory testing of the drawn blood.
- The attached affidavit recited facts the magistrate found sufficient for probable cause to draw blood; those same facts, the majority held, supported probable cause to test the blood.
- The Court majority concluded testing was implicitly authorized by the warrant/affidavit; Justice Walker filed a dissent arguing the warrant did not authorize testing.
- The dissent rests on the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement, contending that authorization to draw and deliver blood is not the same as authorization to submit it for laboratory testing and that the warrant’s wording, unlike Faulkner, did not incorporate the affidavit into the warrant’s command.
- Dissent relies on precedent (Long, Faulkner, Bonds, Sheppard) to argue for a narrow, text-based reading of warrant scope; opinion filed Sept. 16, 2020 (Tex. Crim. App., PD-1070-19).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrant that authorizes a blood draw implicitly authorizes laboratory testing of that blood | Warrant + incorporated affidavit supplied probable cause to test; testing is a reasonable extension of seizure | Warrant authorizes only carrying, drawing, and delivering the sample to the officer; testing is a distinct search that must be expressly authorized | Court majority: testing implicitly authorized; dissent: warrant did not authorize testing |
| Whether incorporation of an affidavit into the "WHEREAS" clause makes the affidavit part of the warrant's command (i.e., expands scope) | Affidavit incorporation supports reading affidavit facts to justify testing | Incorporation in "WHEREAS" only supports magistrate's finding of probable cause; it does not incorporate the affidavit into the command—Faulkner is distinguishable | Court applied affidavit facts to justify testing; dissent rejects this, distinguishing Faulkner and relying on Long for narrow reading |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (warrant particularity requirement; invalid warrants and Fourth Amendment limits)
- Bonds v. State, 403 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (lists constitutional objectives of particularity and scope-limiting function of warrants)
- Long v. State, 132 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (advocates common-sense but text-grounded reading of warrant scope; refused to treat a separate residence as implicitly covered)
- Faulkner v. State, 537 S.W.2d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (upheld seizure where warrant’s command explicitly incorporated the affidavit; distinguished by dissent here)