Douds, Kenneth Lee, 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1060

Background

Early-morning single-vehicle collision; appellant Kenneth Lee Douds was arrested for DWI after an officer determined he was intoxicated. Appellant’s passenger (his wife) complained of injury and said a friend would take her for medical care.
Officer Tran requested a breath test (refused) and then, believing the statutory predicate for a mandatory blood draw existed (Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b)(1)(C)), transported Douds to a medical center where blood was drawn at 4:45 a.m. without a warrant; BAC = .209.
Douds filed two pretrial suppression motions; his written and hearing arguments primarily challenged the officer’s application of the mandatory-blood-draw statute (that the statutory prerequisites were not met).
At the suppression hearing the parties and the court focused on whether the statutory predicate (that the injured passenger had been transported for treatment) was satisfied; neither party elicited testimony or argued about the feasibility of obtaining a warrant or exigent-circumstances facts.
Trial court denied suppression; Douds pleaded guilty to reduced misdemeanor DWI and appealed. The court of appeals (en banc) reversed, holding no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw and that the Fourth Amendment claim was preserved.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, holding Douds failed to preserve a Fourth Amendment warrant/exigent-circumstances complaint because his suppression hearing and briefing limited the challenge to statutory noncompliance, not the constitutionality of a warrantless blood draw.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Douds)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Preservation: Did Douds preserve a Fourth Amendment challenge that the blood draw was unreasonable because it was warrantless and lacked exigent circumstances?	His written motion alleged the arrest/search was without a valid warrant and sought suppression; the court of appeals treated that as sufficient to preserve a Fourth Amendment claim.	The hearing and briefs focused on statutory compliance under § 724.012; counsel narrowed issues at hearing, so the trial court was not fairly put on notice of a separate warrant/exigency challenge.	Held: Not preserved — the record shows appellant limited his complaint to statutory grounds, so the trial court had no opportunity to rule on a warrant/exigency claim.
Merits (Fourth Amendment): Was a warrant required or were exigent circumstances shown to justify the warrantless blood draw?	Argued a warrant was required or, if warrantless, the State had to prove exigent circumstances to justify reasonableness.	Contended the mandatory-blood-draw statute authorized a warrantless draw when its prerequisites were reasonably believed to be met (and the officer reasonably believed they were).	Held: Court did not reach the merits because the Fourth Amendment claim was forfeited; appellate court’s reversal on exigency grounds was reversed.

Key Cases Cited

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (recognizes blood draw as a search implicating Fourth Amendment and permits warrantless extraction only in limited circumstances)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (rejects per se exigency rule for blood draws based solely on alcohol dissipation)
Buchanan v. State, 207 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preservation requires stating specific grounds unless apparent from context)
Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (review of preservation must consider the entire record)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (to preserve error, let the trial judge know what relief is sought and why)
Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (purpose of timely objection: inform judge and opposing counsel)
State v. Robinson, 334 S.W.3d 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (after defendant shows search was warrantless, State must prove reasonableness)