McGruder v. State
475 S.W.3d 345
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- McGruder was stopped after his pickup matched a suspicious-vehicle description and nearby officers detected alcohol odor.
- He gave nonsensical/conflicting answers and refused field sobriety tests; he was arrested and refused breath/blood tests.
- Police planned a blood draw; during warrant preparation they learned of two prior DWI convictions and switched to mandatory blood draw paperwork.
- A blood draw occurred at the hospital under section 724.012(b)(3)(B) after the two priors were confirmed.
- McGruder objected at trial to the blood draw kit and vial as unconstitutional under 724.012; the trial court overruled; the blood test results were admitted.
- The majority uphold the statute as facially constitutional; Justice Davis dissents, arguing the statute is unconstitutional under McNeely and the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is section 724.012(b)(3)(B) facially unconstitutional | McGruder argues it always violates the Fourth Amendment | McGruder fails to show a constant unconstitutionality | Statute facially valid; majority rejects challenge |
| Does McNeely require exigent circumstances for a nonconsensual blood draw under 724.012(b) | McGruder relies on McNeely to say no warrantless draw without exigent circumstances | Texas courts have interpreted the statute as not mandating a warrant but allowing exceptions | Statute not invalidated by McNeely; majority reads it as not creating per se unconstitutionality |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeely v. Missouri, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (exigent circumstances must be considered case-by-case; not per se exigency for blood draws)
- Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2012) (pre McNeely interpretation of 724.012(b) subject to revision)
- Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (discusses mandatory blood draw; statute's silence on warrants; publication)
- Weems v. State, 434 S.W.3d 655 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2014) (courts discuss absence of warrant under 724.012(b))
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (principle that implied-consent law does not authorize forcible blood draws absent warrant or valid exception)