Melissa Dromgoole v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 7637
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Melissa Dromgoole was arrested for DWI after nearly striking an officer, running two red lights, smelling of alcohol, exhibiting slurred speech and glassy eyes, and failing three field‑sobriety tests.
- She told the arresting officer she had "syncope" (fainting spells); a treating physician later testified syncope can cause pre‑syncope symptoms that might affect balance and that syncope can increase risk during blood draws.
- Dromgoole refused blood testing; police obtained a warrant and a nurse drew her blood, which tested at 0.17 g/100 mL by headspace gas chromatography.
- At suppression hearings Dromgoole argued (1) the warrant affidavit omitted her syncope and the blood draw posed an unreasonable medical risk, (2) Chapter 724 of the Transportation Code barred a nonconsensual blood draw for misdemeanor DWI absent aggravating circumstances, and (3) the lab’s validation was flawed because the vial‑oven temperature was set at 60°C on most validation days though the protocol called for 70°C.
- The trial court denied suppression and admitted the blood result after credibility findings favoring the State’s lab witnesses; Dromgoole was convicted and sentenced (one year probated, $500 fine). The court of appeals affirmed as modified to correct the judgment’s enhancement finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dromgoole) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the blood draw was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure because of Dromgoole's syncope | She argued she notified police of syncope and that syncope made venipuncture an unreasonable medical risk, so the draw must be suppressed | Officer only knew the diagnosis name and fainting history; a suspect must give sufficient, particularized notice that a draw poses an unreasonable risk; warrant exists | Held: Dromgoole failed to prove she gave sufficient notice that a blood draw posed an unreasonable medical risk; suppression denied |
| Whether the warrant was invalid for omitting syncope or because pre‑syncope could explain failed FSTs | Omitted diagnosis was material and would have defeated probable cause; pre‑syncope could explain FST failures | Probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances (driving, odor, speech, failing FSTs); possible innocent explanations do not negate probable cause | Held: Even if omitted, inclusion of syncope would not have defeated probable cause; warrant valid |
| Whether Chapter 724 forbids the nonconsensual blood draw despite a warrant | Chapter 724's implied‑consent regime prohibits drawing blood from misdemeanor DWI suspects absent statutory aggravators | Once a valid warrant exists, implied‑consent limits are moot; Beeman remains good law and was reaffirmed by later CCA holdings | Held: Chapter 724 does not bar a warrant‑authorized blood draw; statutory objection overruled |
| Whether blood‑alcohol evidence was unreliable because validation used incorrect oven temperature | Validation was defective (oven set at 60°C during validation vs. 70°C in protocol), so results unreliable under Kelly/Rule 702 | Headspace GC is a well‑accepted method; the instrument reports an alcohol:n‑propanol ratio so a proportional temperature effect cancels out; known‑control checks during use would have detected any error; trial court credited State experts | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; State met its burden to show the technique was properly applied and results were reliable |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (landmark Fourth Amendment analysis for compulsory blood draws)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (false statements or material omissions in warrant affidavits)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (officer’s knowledge assessed at the moment of seizure)
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (valid search warrant supersedes implied‑consent statutory scheme)
- Johnston v. State, 336 S.W.3d 649 (defendant’s burden to notify police of medical risk and Schmerber framework)
- Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (three‑part reliability test for scientific evidence)
- Reynolds v. State, 204 S.W.3d 386 (modified Kelly analysis for breath/blood evidence reliability)
- Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538 (standard of review for suppression hearing)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (addressing exigency and warrant doctrine in blood draws)