Michael Joe Lyssy v. State
429 S.W.3d 37
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Texas imposes a blood draw on DWI arrestees when the officer has reliable information from a credible source that the arrestee has two or more prior DWI convictions; Lyssy was charged with DWI and moved to suppress the blood draw.
- Rivas stopped Lyssy for failing to maintain a lane and arrested him after field sobriety testing and Lyssy’s refusal to blow into a breathalyzer.
- Rivas queried TCIC/NCIC using Lyssy’s license plate and driver’s license; the report stated Lyssy had a prior conviction described as “driving while intoxicated 2nd.”
- Dispatch orally relayed the finding to Rivas; Rivas believed Lyssy had two prior DWI convictions and ordered a blood sample without a warrant.
- Lyssy pleaded nolo contendere to the DWI charge under a plea bargain; the trial court sentenced him, suspended the sentence, and imposed community supervision.
- Lyssy challenged the blood draw as unlawfully obtained under the statute and, on appeal, the court assumed the statute’s constitutionality for purposes of the appeal and rejected the reliability challenge to the information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of 724.012(b) after McNeely | Lyssy argues McNeely makes 724.012(b) unconstitutional | Lyssy did not preserve a constitutional challenge below; majority assumes validity | Waived; court assumes constitutionality for purposes of appeal |
| Reliability of TCIC/NCIC information to justify blood draw | Information was facially inconsistent, making it unreliable | Information from a credible source indicated two prior DWI convictions; not necessary to be perfect | Reliable information supported two prior DWI convictions; blood draw upheld by majority |
Key Cases Cited
- Comperry v. State, 375 S.W.3d 508 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (reliance on TCIC/NCIC without misreading convictions permissible)
- Terrazas v. State, 406 S.W.3d 689 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2013) (reliability of TCIC/NCIC information in field arrests)
- Flores v. State, 392 S.W.3d 229 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2012) (TCIC/NCIC information not per se reliable; reliability to be proven by record)
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (implied consent framework for warrantless blood draws)
- Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (contextual specificity required to preserve objections)
- State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (implied consent and evidence reviewed on sufficiency of facts)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 134 (2013) (McNeely clarifies exigency; does not render Texas implied-consent statute unconstitutional)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (establishes two-part analysis for blood draws: justification and reasonableness)