McClendon, Mitchell
PD-0999-15
| Tex. App. | Aug 6, 2015Background
- Defendant Mitchell McClendon was arrested for DWI; he refused to provide a voluntary blood sample.
- Officer ordered a warrantless blood draw under Texas Transp. Code § 724.012(b)(3) by a phlebotomist.
- McClendon moved to suppress the blood evidence, arguing Missouri v. McNeely required a warrant absent exigent circumstances.
- Trial court granted the motion to suppress; State appealed to the 13th Court of Appeals.
- The State conceded there were no exigent circumstances and did not assert other warrant exceptions on appeal.
- The 13th Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Transportation Code’s mandatory-draw and implied-consent provisions do not by themselves satisfy the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McClendon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas’s implied-consent/mandatory blood-draw statute constitutes a constitutional alternative to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement | The statute authorizes and justifies a warrantless mandatory blood draw; officer relied on statute in good faith | Warrant required under McNeely; statute does not eliminate Fourth Amendment protections | The statute alone is not a constitutional substitute for a warrant; suppression affirmed |
| Whether exigent-circumstances or other exceptions justified the warrantless draw | (State conceded) not argued on appeal | No exigent circumstances existed | No exigency shown; warrant required |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (warrant ordinarily required for nonconsensual blood draw absent exigent circumstances)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact on suppression)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial court factual findings on suppression)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review of suppression rulings)