Nicolas Stephen Lloyd v. State
453 S.W.3d 544
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Lloyd was involved in a major vehicle accident at about 1:00 a.m.; police observed a strong odor of alcohol and his bloodshot eyes.
- Lloyd refused to talk further and refused standardized field sobriety tests without an attorney; he was arrested for DWI.
- At the jail, Lloyd refused to provide a blood sample; officer began a search-warrant for a blood draw but abandoned it after learning Lloyd had two prior DWI convictions.
- Lloyd was taken to the hospital for a mandatory blood draw under Transportation Code § 724.012; the blood was drawn around 3:00 a.m. and he was charged with felony DWI third offense.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion; on appeal, Villarreal was decided during the proceedings addressing whether mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment.
- The State argued implied consent and exigent circumstances; Lloyd argued no consent and no valid exception, so the blood alcohol evidence should be suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw violated Fourth Amendment | Lloyd: search was unconstitutional without consent or warrant; no exigent circumstances. | State: implied consent and statutory authority justified warrantless blood draw. | Yes; warrantless blood draw violated Fourth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (exigency in blood draws not presumed; warrant preferred when possible)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (exigent circumstances must be case-specific and not categorical)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (exigencies illustrating when warrantless searches are justified)
- State v. Kerwick, 393 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (deference to trial-court findings; standards for suppressing evidence)