Fred Schneider v. State
03-14-00189-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 4, 2015Background
- Decedent: Fred Robert Schneider was indicted for felony DWI (third-or-more) based on prior convictions; tried before a jury and sentenced to probation after conviction; timely appealed.
- Arrest and evidence: Officers responded to a hit-and-run, located Schneider at home, arrested him that night, and obtained a nonconsensual blood sample at the jail roughly 2–2.5 hours after initial contact; the blood BAC was .215.
- Procedure at issue: No warrant was obtained for the blood draw; officers testified they believed a statutory mandatory-draw provision authorized warrantless blood draws for repeat offenders and said the DA would not have sought a warrant at that time.
- Preservation: Schneider moved to suppress before and during trial under Missouri v. McNeely and requested a jury instruction to disregard blood evidence if the jury found it was obtained without a warrant or exigent circumstances; both requests were denied.
- Trial and jury: The blood result was the State’s primary evidence of per se intoxication; the jury asked during deliberations whether failing to obtain a warrant before the blood draw was a violation of law.
- Additional claim: Schneider argued an ex post facto violation because statutory changes removed an earlier 10-year limiting rule on using old DWI convictions to enhance punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schneider) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Admissibility of warrantless blood draw under McNeely | Blood was taken without warrant or consent and no exigent circumstances existed; suppression required. | Officer relied on then-understood statutory mandatory-draw authority for repeat offenders; no warrant needed per local practice. | Trial court denied suppression; appellant argues this was error under McNeely and Texas precedent. |
| 2) Jury instruction to disregard blood evidence if illegally obtained | Jury should have been instructed it may disregard blood evidence obtained without warrant/exigent circumstances; denial caused "some harm." | Instruction unnecessary because court admitted the evidence and evaluated admissibility itself. | Trial court denied requested instruction; appellant argues denial was harmful because BAC evidence was dispositive. |
| 3) Ex post facto challenge to enhancement using old convictions | Applying post-2005 enhancement rules to convictions >10 years old violates Article I, §16 (ex post facto/retroactivity). | State relies on current statute to enhance; earlier 10-year bar no longer applies. | Trial court allowed enhancement; appellant contends constitutional bar was violated and seeks reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1522 (U.S. 2013) (warrantless, nonconsensual blood draws in DWI cases are not per se justified by natural dissipation of alcohol; exigency is case-specific)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draws are searches implicating Fourth Amendment; exigent-circumstances analysis applied)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation warnings rule cited in factual background)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1997) (exigent-circumstances and case-by-case warrant exceptions guidance)
- Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513 (U.S. 2000) (ex post facto/retroactivity principles regarding changes to rules of evidence)
- Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (harm analysis for constitutional error under Texas law)
- Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (en banc) (accident/investigation alone does not establish exigency for warrantless blood draw)