McGruder, Michael Anthony, PD-1263-14

Background

Defendant Michael McGruder was arrested for DWI after a traffic stop; officers learned he had two prior DWI convictions and a warrantless blood draw was taken after he refused breath testing.
The blood test showed a .09 BAC; McGruder did not file a pretrial suppression motion but objected at trial; he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years.
McGruder appealed; the Tenth Court of Appeals (Waco) affirmed, treating his challenge as a facial attack on Tex. Transp. Code §724.012(b)(3)(B). Two-justice majority rejected the facial challenge; one justice dissented.
McGruder petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals, which granted discretionary review. The grant was with no oral argument.
Core legal question: whether the mandatory-blood-draw statute authorizes or mandates warrantless, nonconsensual blood draws (thus violating the Fourth Amendment) or whether the statute is constitutionally valid (facially and/or as applied).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McGruder)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (Court of Appeals)
Facial constitutionality of Tex. Transp. Code §724.012(b)(3)(B)	The statute is unconstitutional because it permits mandatory, warrantless, nonconsensual blood draws of repeat-offender arrestees, violating the Fourth Amendment	The facial challenge fails; statute presumed constitutional and McGruder did not show it is always invalid in all circumstances	Majority: facial challenge fails; statute presumed valid. Dissent: statute poses a facial problem. Review granted by Court of Criminal Appeals.
As-applied warrant requirement for involuntary blood draws	As-applied, the warrantless blood draw here violated the Fourth Amendment because no exigent circumstance or other exception existed	The officer reasonably relied on statutory mandate and/or implied-consent framework	Appellate majority focused on facial claim and did not find statute invalid; dissent and several sister courts have held warrantless nonconsensual draws absent exigency violate the Fourth Amendment.
Good-faith / implied-consent exception to warrant requirement	Officer's reliance on the statute or implied-consent does not justify warrantless compelled blood draws; statutory silence on warrants cannot override Fourth Amendment	State contends statutory framework and implied-consent support compelled draws in some circumstances	Appellate majority did not accept McGruder’s facial theory; other courts and the dissent reject broad application of good-faith/implied-consent as a free-standing exception to the warrant requirement.
Reliance on Beeman and precedent	Beeman’s dicta cannot authorize warrantless compulsory blood draws where no warrant/exception exists; later authorities limit Beeman	State and majority cited Beeman language to reject overbreadth concerns	Majority relied on Beeman-language; dissent and later appellate decisions treat Beeman’s dicta as inapposite and not controlling post-McNeely.

Key Cases Cited

Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (Supreme Court: natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency; exigency must be judged case-by-case)
Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (discussed language about limits on compelled blood draws; treated as non-controlling dicta by some later panels)
Weems v. State, 434 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (appellate court rejecting argument that §724.012 is a per se substitute for Fourth Amendment warrant requirement)
Forsyth v. State, 438 S.W.3d 216 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2014) (warrantless blood draw under §724.012 violated Fourth Amendment where officers relied on statute and no exigency existed)
Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (examined interplay of implied-consent/mandatory-draw statutes and Fourth Amendment; later proceedings after cert. activity)
Santikos v. State, 836 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (standards for facial challenges and statutory validity in Texas)
State v. Johnston, 336 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (principle that state law cannot authorize conduct inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment)