Dane Alexander Dennison v. State
09-15-00525-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 18, 2017Background
- Dennison was charged with DWI (BAC ≥ 0.15). After a jury guilty verdict, he received jail, fine, and probation; he appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a warrantless blood draw.
- Accident occurred ~9:00 p.m.; Dennison was stretchered to a hospital; officers investigated the scene for ~2 hours before Trooper Sarrett drove ~30 minutes to the hospital.
- Trooper Sarrett testified she developed probable cause at the hospital (HGN 6/6, smell of alcohol); hospital blood draw occurred at 12:41 a.m., ~3–4 hours after the crash.
- Officers testified there was no on-call magistrate system in May 2014; Judge Flores was the only judge they routinely reached after hours, and Deputy Flores (his son) said Judge Flores was out of town and unavailable.
- Dennison argued the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment and Texas Constitution; State claimed exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw.
- The trial court found officers credible and concluded, under the totality of circumstances, exigent circumstances existed; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment | Dennison: officers could have (and should have) sought a warrant; a deputy’s statement that a judge was unavailable does not create exigency | State: delay to obtain a warrant (no on-call magistrate, usual judge unavailable, long scene investigation, flight risk, possible medical treatment) would have undermined evidence due to alcohol dissipation | Court: Affirmed—totality of circumstances supported exigency; warrantless draw justified |
| Whether specific trial-court findings (11, 12, 15) were supported by the record | Dennison: insufficient evidence those findings (unavailability of Judge Flores, general unavailability late at night, inability to task another trooper) were true | State: trial court credited officer testimony that no on-call system existed, Judge Flores was unavailable, and staffing made tasking impractical | Court: Affirmed—gave deference to trial court credibility findings and found evidence supported those findings |
| Whether the case aligns with precedents allowing warrantless blood draws (e.g., Schmerber/Cole) or with cases rejecting exigency (Weems) | Dennison: facts more like Weems; transport time and possible availability of other officers undercut exigency | State: facts more like Cole—scene investigation, lack of magistrate, unavailable judge, long delays would make warrant impractical | Court: Held facts align with Cole (distinguishable from Weems); exigency existed |
| Whether officers satisfied their burden to prove an exception to the warrant requirement | Dennison: State failed to prove exigent-circumstances exception | State: met burden under totality-of-circumstances test | Court: Held State met its burden; exigency exception applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw can be reasonable under exigent circumstances where delay would dissipate evidence)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol is not a per se exigency; exigency determined by totality of circumstances)
- Cole v. State, 490 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (upheld warrantless blood draw based on combined factors including scene investigation and magistrate availability)
- Weems v. State, 493 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (reversed where record did not support exigency; comparable facts did not make warrant impractical)