Hughes v. State
334 S.W.3d 379
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Hughes was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and sentenced to 180 days in jail with jail time suspended and 18 months of community supervision.
- Officer Woody stopped Hughes for a wide right turn and for failing to keep Hughes in a single marked lane.
- Officer Woody smelled alcohol and performed field sobriety tests after stopping Hughes, then arrested him for DWI.
- Hughes refused a breath test; blood was drawn at the hospital with a warrant obtained via a sworn affidavit.
- Motions to suppress the stop, the blood test, and HGN results were denied; Hughes was tried and found guilty; on appeal, seven issues were raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop had reasonable suspicion to detain Hughes | Hughes argues the traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion | State contends observed traffic violations and credibility support a stop | Overruled; stop supported by factual basis for a lawful initial detention |
| Whether the blood warrant had probable cause | Hughes contends the affidavit lacked sufficient facts for probable cause | State asserts the totality of the circumstances supports probable cause | Overruled; probable cause supported by the field sobriety results and odor/symptoms |
| Whether the oath for the warrant could be administered telephonically/fax | Hughes asserts improper oath method taints the warrant | State argues technicalities do not invalidate the warrant | Overruled; oath method did not affect warrant validity |
| Whether exigent circumstances were required for a blood draw under a warrant | Hughes claims no exigent circumstances; warrantless intrusiveness inappropriate | State emphasizes warrant preferred and that warrant satisfies constitutional requirements | Overruled; warrant-based blood draw permissible without exigent circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (deference to trial court on historical facts; totality of circumstances)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (standard for review on law-to-fact questions in suppressions)
- Garcia-Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (implied findings when trial court silent; credibility of witnesses)
- Patterson v. State, 291 S.W.3d 121 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2009) (traffic violation can justify detention for reasonable suspicion)
- Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (probable cause standard for warrants; deferential review)
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (probable cause determinations in warrants; common-sense reading of affidavits)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for probable cause)
- Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (probable cause assessment in suppression context)
- Smith v. State, 207 S.W.3d 787 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (affidavit signed requirements and effect on warrants)
- Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (probable cause standards in warrant determinations)