Munoz, Vicente
PD-1276-15
| Tex. App. | Sep 30, 2015Background
- On Sept. 5, 2009, Vicente Munoz was found asleep in a vehicle with signs of intoxication, refused SFSTs and a breath test, and was arrested for DWI.
- Officer transported Munoz to a hospital and, relying on Texas Transportation Code §724.012(b)(3)(B) (mandatory blood draw for repeat DWI offenders), obtained a nonconsensual blood sample without a warrant; BAC was ~.25.
- Trial court initially denied a suppression motion but later (during trial) granted Munoz’s motion to suppress the blood evidence and declared a mistrial; State appealed.
- The El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed suppression, holding a nonconsensual blood draw under the mandatory‑draw statute violated the Fourth Amendment absent a warrant or exigent circumstances and that McNeely governs.
- The State petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review, arguing (1) the mandatory/ implied‑consent statute is constitutional and (2) officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on then‑binding law (invoking Heien and good‑faith doctrines).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Munoz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonconsensual, statute‑mandated blood draw under Tex. Transp. Code §724.012(b)(3)(B) violates the Fourth Amendment | Statute authorizes mandatory draws for repeat offenders; such draws are lawful and not per se barred by McNeely | McNeely requires a warrant absent exigent circumstances; statutory mandate does not eliminate the warrant requirement | Court of Appeals: statute‑mandated, warrantless draws violate the Fourth Amendment when no warrant or exigency is shown (affirmed suppression) |
| Whether McNeely applies retroactively to a 2009 blood draw and bars admission of the evidence | State: officers relied on then‑binding statutory authority and precedent; evidence admissible under good‑faith reliance and exclusionary‑rule exceptions | Munoz: McNeely applies and State failed to prove exigent circumstances; evidence must be suppressed | Court of Appeals: McNeely controls; State failed to show exigency; good‑faith reliance on statute did not salvage admissibility under Texas law (affirmed suppression) |
| Whether federal good‑faith doctrines or mistake‑of‑law (Heien) excuse warrantless blood draws under Texas exclusionary statutes | State: Heien and federal good‑faith case law (Krull/Leon/Peltier) permit admission when officers reasonably relied on a presumptively valid statute | Munoz: Texas exclusionary rule (Art. 38.23) and Texas precedent refuse to recognize a broad good‑faith statutory exception; McNeely still bars the draw | Court of Appeals: declined to adopt a federal‑style good‑faith statutory exception; Texas law requires warrant or exigency (affirmed suppression) |
| Whether any Fourth Amendment exception (waiver, special needs, administrative purpose) justifies mandatory draws without warrant | State (in PDR/related briefing): argued waiver, special‑needs, administrative licensing interests, and generalized reasonableness could justify statute | Munoz: primary purpose is evidentiary/criminal; these exceptions don't apply to authorize warrantless draws | Court of Appeals: rejected those exceptions as applied; treated statutory mandatory draw as insufficient to displace McNeely/exigent‑circumstances analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (an objectively reasonable mistake of law can justify police action under the Fourth Amendment)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not create a per se exigency permitting warrantless blood draws; exigency is case‑specific)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood draws are searches under the Fourth Amendment and may be reasonable in certain emergency circumstances)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (enactment of a statute provides objective legitimacy to officers' actions and can foreclose speculation about constitutionality for good‑faith reliance purposes)