Jesse Thomas Sutherland v. State
436 S.W.3d 28
Tex. App.2014Background
- Appellant Jesse Thomas Sutherland was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated and sentenced to a negotiated five-year term of community supervision, after pleading guilty but preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
- Sutherland was stopped late at night for traffic violations, performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and refused both breath and blood tests.
- Police took a blood sample from Sutherland at the Travis County jail without his consent and without a warrant, relying on Texas Transportation Code § 724.012(b)(3)(B) which mandates a blood draw for a prior DWI offender when the suspect refuses.
- The warrant process in Travis County was described as streamlined, with a magistrate available 24/7 and a phlebotomist nearby, yet the officer did not attempt to obtain a warrant before drawing blood.
- The central legal question was whether Texas § 724.012(b)(3)(B) violates the Fourth Amendment by mandating a nonconsensual, warrantless blood draw in all such cases, and whether exigent circumstances justified the draw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 724.012(b)(3)(B) violates the Fourth Amendment | Sutherland argues the statute compels a nonconsensual blood draw in all cases without a warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment. | State contends the statute triggers a permissible exception to the warrant requirement and is consistent with implied consent and exigent circumstances analysis. | Yes; statute cannot justify warrantless seizure absent exigent circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. (1966)) (warrantless blood draws may be justified by exigent circumstances on a case-specific basis)
- McNeely v. Missouri, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. (2013)) (exigency cannot be per se; totality of circumstances governs warrantless blood draws)
- Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (implied-consent framework; warrantless blood draw permissible under Beeman principles in certain circumstances)
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (implied consent and exceptions to the warrant requirement for blood draws)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. (1973)) (brief search incident to arrest and reasonable Fourth Amendment framework)
- Go-Bart Imp. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 (U.S. (1931)) (early framework for reasonableness of searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment)