McGruder, Michael Anthony
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 36
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- McGruder was arrested for DWI after officers observed signs of intoxication and, upon learning he had two prior DWI convictions, officers took a blood draw at a hospital without a warrant under Tex. Trans. Code § 724.012(b)(3)(B).
- Blood test showed a BAC of .09; McGruder was convicted of felony DWI and sentenced to 30 years (punishment enhanced by two prior non-DWI felonies).
- At trial McGruder objected when the blood evidence was admitted, arguing § 724.012(b)(3)(B) permits warrantless collection in violation of the Fourth Amendment; the trial court overruled the objection.
- On direct appeal McGruder raised a facial constitutional challenge to the statute; the Tenth Court of Appeals rejected it, treating it as a facial challenge and upholding the statute.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to consider whether § 724.012(b)(3)(B) is facially unconstitutional for authorizing warrantless blood draws without exigent circumstances or a warrant.
- The Court vacated and remanded the court of appeals’ judgment for reconsideration in light of intervening U.S. Supreme Court and Texas precedents (City of Los Angeles v. Patel and State v. Villarreal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 724.012(b)(3)(B) is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment for mandating blood draws without a warrant or exigency | McGruder: statute facially violates the Fourth Amendment because it requires compelled blood draws whenever a driver has two prior DWI convictions, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances | State: statute can be applied consistent with the Fourth Amendment (i.e., with a warrant or recognized exception), so it is not facially invalid | Court: did not resolve the merits; vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Patel and Villarreal (noting the heavy burden for successful facial challenges) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015) (facial-challenge standard for statutes authorizing warrantless searches)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial challenge requires showing statute is invalid in all applications)
- State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (§ 724.012(b)(3)(B) does not by itself satisfy Fourth Amendment warrant requirement)
- State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (facial challenge inquiry focuses on the statute’s language)
- State v. Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defendant must establish statute always operates unconstitutionally to prevail on facial challenge)