Hyland v. State
574 S.W.3d 904
Tex. Crim. App.2019Background
- Richard Hyland crashed his motorcycle late at night; passenger (his wife) died and Hyland was seriously injured and unconscious at hospital.
- Officer Harrison investigated, obtained eyewitness IDs that Hyland was the driver, and at the hospital detected a "strong" odor of alcohol on Hyland.
- Harrison used a preprinted DWI blood-draw affidavit (which included boilerplate paragraphs stating field sobriety tests were administered and that the suspect refused blood/breath); Harrison left those boilerplate statements intact.
- At a Franks hearing the trial court found the boilerplate statements (about SFSTs and refusal) false and excised Paragraph 7 entirely and the last sentence of Paragraph 9.
- Trial court nonetheless held the redacted affidavit established probable cause; Hyland's blood was drawn (0.19 BAC), he was convicted of intoxication manslaughter, and the court of appeals reversed, holding the remaining affidavit did not "clearly" establish probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hyland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excision of false statements after a Franks finding requires a heightened "clear" probable-cause standard | No — standard remains the ordinary probable-cause inquiry; McClintock's "clearly" language was not intended to elevate the legal standard | Yes — court of appeals read McClintock to require the affidavit to "clearly" establish probable cause after excision | Held: No heightened standard; apply normal probable-cause analysis to the purged affidavit |
| Whether the remaining facts (driver ID, serious single-vehicle crash with fatality, and officer's detection of a "strong" odor of alcohol) supported probable cause for a blood-draw warrant | These facts suffice to establish probable cause that evidence of DWI would be in the blood | Argued remaining facts (smell + circumstances) insufficient after excision of boilerplate | Held: The remaining facts did establish probable cause; conviction reinstated |
| Whether McClintock I and unpublished Lollar control this result | State: McClintock's language should not be read to raise the standard; factual differences matter | Hyland: McClintock supports reversal because redacted affidavit relied on smell and circumstances | Held: McClintock distinguishable on facts (odor here was "strong" and tied to the driver); Lollar not binding and distinguishable |
| Whether deference to magistrate persists after Franks excision | State: usual deference not required; court still evaluates whether remaining affidavit establishes probable cause | Hyland: court of appeals applied stricter reading post-excision | Held: Reviewing court should not give magistrate deference to the excised affidavit but also need not apply an elevated probable-cause test |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (if excising alleged falsities leaves sufficient content for probable cause, no Franks relief)
- McClintock v. State, 444 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discusses review when tainted information is stricken; Court distinguishes facts here)
- Pesina v. State, 676 S.W.2d 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (strong odor of alcohol on seriously injured driver after crash supported probable cause for blood extraction)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under totality-of-the-circumstances and magistrate must have substantial basis)
- Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (warrant valid if it "clearly could have been issued" on untainted information)
- Sanchez v. State, 365 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (blood draw is a search but valid if pursuant to a warrant)
- Washington v. State, 660 S.W.2d 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (probable cause exists when reasonably trustworthy facts lead a prudent person to believe evidence will be found)