Jasmyne Donosky v. State, 02-16-00399-CR

Appellant Jasmyne Donosky was found slumped in the driver’s seat of a Kia after a hit‑and‑run; officer observed damage to another vehicle and tire markings between the cars.
At 2:54 a.m. the officer arrived, awakened Donosky, who admitted she had been driving and had consumed “two or three” drinks and rated her intoxication a 3/10.
Officer Wilcock observed signs of intoxication (glassy eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol) and recorded failures on several field‑sobriety tests; Donosky was arrested for DWI and refused breath/blood tests.
At about 6:29 a.m. (≈3.5 hours after dispatch) a magistrate issued a warrant for a blood draw based on the officer’s affidavit; the trial court denied Donosky’s suppression motion and she pleaded guilty while preserving the issue for appeal.
The trial court made findings that the affidavit provided probable cause that Donosky committed DWI, that blood would be evidence of the offense, and that the sample was on her; the court concluded the magistrate had a substantial basis to issue the warrant.

Issue	Donosky's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit established probable cause for a blood‑draw warrant given the lapse of time before issuance	Affidavit failed to specify when the DWI occurred, so magistrate could not know if alcohol would still be present in blood (staleness)	Magistrate could reasonably infer the offense occurred just before the 2:54 a.m. dispatch; less than four‑hour gap supports finding intoxicating evidence in blood	Warrant affidavit was sufficient; trial court affirmed — magistrate had substantial basis to infer offense occurred shortly before dispatch and evidence would remain in blood

Farhat v. State, 337 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011) (explains affidavit sufficiency and magistrate's reasonable inferences for issuing warrants)
Crider v. State, 352 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (addresses staleness for blood‑alcohol warrants and four‑hour rule guidance)
State v. Jordan, 342 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (permits inference that observations occurred shortly before warrant when date/time context supports it)