Evans, Thomas Andrews Ii
PD-0418-15
| Tex. | Apr 16, 2015Background
- Evans drove a Toyota Tundra through an intersection and collided with a Chevrolet Traverse, injuring its two occupants.
- At the scene Evans smelled of alcohol, had red/glassy eyes, slurred speech, admitted drinking 2–3 beers, refused SFSTs and refused to give blood.
- Trooper nevertheless obtained a warrantless blood draw over Evans’s objections under Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b)(1)(C).
- Evans moved to suppress the blood evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds; the trial court denied the motion and Evans reserved appellate rights as part of a plea bargain.
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding implied consent could not justify the warrantless blood draw after the defendant withdrew consent, relying on this Court’s decision in State v. Villarreal.
- The State seeks discretionary review, arguing the appellate court erred by not considering alternative justifications (special needs doctrine, good-faith/reliance on existing law, and nonapplication of Article 38.23 exclusionary rule).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether implied-consent authority survives a driver's withdrawal of consent to a blood draw | State: implied consent statute permits mandatory blood draw; withdrawal does not render the draw unreasonable | Evans: he withdrew consent so warrantless blood draw violated Fourth Amendment | Court of Appeals: withdrawal defeats implied-consent justification; reversed trial court (relied on Villarreal) |
| Whether the warrantless blood draw is reasonable under the "special needs" doctrine | State: special-needs precedents (e.g., King, Skinner, Griffin) justify nonwarrant blood draws for public-safety interests | Evans: no special-need exception applies to this compelled blood draw | Court of Appeals: did not rule on special-needs arguments (issue left unresolved by opinion) |
| Whether Article 38.23 exclusion should bar evidence when officers relied on then-controlling precedent interpreting Chapter 724 | State: officers relied on existing case law; exclusion under Art. 38.23 should not apply to suppress well-founded reliance | Evans: evidence should be excluded under Article 38.23 if Fourth Amendment violated | Court of Appeals: did not address the Article 38.23/reliance argument (issue left unresolved by opinion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (discusses interaction of Texas statutory provisions and law-enforcement procedures)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Exec. Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (upheld certain warrantless drug/alcohol testing under Fourth Amendment special-needs analysis)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (permitted warrantless searches under special supervision conditions based on special-needs rationale)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (recognized special-needs justification for certain mandatory DNA swabs in criminal booking)