Garcia, Paul Anthony
PD-1119-15
| Tex. App. | Aug 28, 2015Background
- On Sept. 1–2, 2012 a fatal head-on collision occurred; defendant Paul Garcia was extracted from his pickup and airlifted to a hospital; a passenger in the other vehicle died and a child was injured and transported.
- DPS troopers found open container and drug paraphernalia in Garcia’s truck and observed signs (bloodshot eyes, disorientation) that led them to suspect intoxication.
- A hospital nurse drew Garcia’s blood after a trooper read a DIC-24 form; no warrant was obtained; blood test showed BAC 0.187 g/100 mL.
- Garcia moved to suppress the blood-test results; the trial court denied the motion and admitted the results; Garcia was convicted of intoxication manslaughter and reckless injury to a child.
- The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, holding the warrantless blood draw could not be justified under Tex. Transp. Code §724.012(b), the good-faith exception did not apply, and the error was not harmless; case remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Garcia) | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether a mandatory, warrantless blood draw under Tex. Transp. Code §724.012(b)(1)(A)-(C) is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | §724.012(b) authorizes/mandates blood draws in serious-accident/DWI cases; the draw was reasonable | The warrantless draw violated the Fourth Amendment per McNeely; a warrant was required | Court held §724.012(b) does not supply a warrant exception; warrantless draw violated the Fourth Amendment | |
| 2. Whether §724.012(b) dispenses with the warrant requirement | The statute’s “shall” language imposes a duty and was relied on by officers | The statute does not expressly eliminate the warrant requirement and cannot override Fourth Amendment | Court held the statute does not authorize warrantless searches and does not dispense with warrant requirement | |
| 3. Whether the good‑faith exception or exclusionary rules permit admission of blood results | Evidence admitted in good faith reliance on statute/DPS protocol; exclusion unnecessary | Officers could not reasonably rely on §724.012(b) as dispensing with warrant; exclusion required | Court held good‑faith exception inapplicable because §724.012(b) does not authorize warrantless searches; suppression required | - |
| 4. Whether exigent‑circumstances could justify a warrantless draw | Fatal crash, injured transported by helicopter, and alcohol dissipation support exigency | No warrantless statutory or exigent exception proven; warrant could have been obtained | Court did not accept exigency as a substitute for a warrant here; primary holding rests on statutory and good‑faith analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule when officers reasonably rely on statute)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (no categorical rule for warrantless blood draws; exigency is fact‑specific)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (balancing test approach for certain searches authorized by statute)
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Texas case construing statutory authority relating to searches)
- Weems v. State, 434 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (holding §724.012(b) not a valid Fourth Amendment exception; admission harmful)
- Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (procedural points on preservation and appellate posture)