Kenneth Lee Douds v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6152
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Douds was arrested for DWI after a two-vehicle collision around 2:30–3:20 a.m. and transported to the station.
- Officer Tran gave a statutory warning about breath testing; Douds refused a breath test.
- Officer Tran forcibly drew a blood sample at a medical facility around 4:45 a.m. under Texas Transportation Code §724.012, without a warrant.
- No warrant for the blood draw appears in the record; the State relied on §724.012 and total circumstances to justify the draw.
- Trial court denied suppression; Douds pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor; the case was appealed on suppression grounds.
- Court held the warrantless blood draw was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mandatory blood draw under §724.012( b)(1)(C) is constitutional | Douds argues the statute cannot justify a warrantless draw for a misdemeanor case. | State contends the statute, plus the totality of circumstances, supports a mandatory blood draw without a warrant. | Warrantless blood draw violates the Fourth Amendment; statute does not create an exception. |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw | Douds asserts no exigency to forego a warrant. | State argues the dissipation of alcohol and accident-scene delays create exigency. | No exigent circumstances proven; warrantless draw unconstitutional. |
| Whether the Texas exclusionary rule allows good-faith reliance on statutes/cases | Douds contends good-faith reliance can excuse suppression failures. | State asserts good-faith reliance should apply under federal precedents. | Texas exclusionary rule does not adopt federal good-faith exceptions; does not apply here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (exigency must be case-specific; not per se rule; totality of circumstances governs warrantless blood draws)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (emergency to prevent destruction of evidence; context-specific warrantless blood draw permitted)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (U.S. 2011) (warrant requirement generally; exceptions must be narrowly drawn)
- State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (view evidence in favor of trial court with implicit findings when none explicit)
- Holmes v. State, 248 S.W.3d 194 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (recognizes officer beliefs as fact questions for reasonableness review)
- Weems v. State, 434 S.W.3d 655 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2014) (Texas exclusionary rule limits on federal good-faith exceptions)
- State v. Kudemba, 310 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (fact-specific exigency considerations in warrant analysis)