Robert Lynn Johnson v. State
09-15-00056-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 18, 2017Background
- On Jan. 26, 2014 a constable stopped Robert Lynn Johnson after observing him speed (53 mph in a 25 mph zone) and fail to observe a stop sign while riding a motorcycle.
- A sergeant assisting the investigation averred in a sworn affidavit he observed a strong odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and a cotton-mouth; Johnson admitted drinking two 12‑oz beers and a glass of red wine and said he drank between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.
- Johnson refused all field sobriety tests and initially refused to provide a blood/breath sample; officers sought and obtained a warrant to draw blood based on the affidavit.
- Johnson moved to suppress the blood-test evidence, arguing the affidavit lacked sufficient articulable facts to establish probable cause for a blood search warrant.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, Johnson pled guilty to misdemeanor DWI, and was placed on 18 months community supervision (180 days confinement and $1500 fine suspended).
- On appeal Johnson challenged only the magistrate’s issuance of the blood search warrant; the appellate court reviewed the affidavit under the four‑corners probable cause standard and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause for a blood draw | Affidavit failed to allege sufficient articulable signs of intoxication to support probable cause | Affidavit recited officer observations (odor, glassy eyes, cotton‑mouth), Johnson's admission of drinking, and refusals to perform tests/supply sample — supporting probable cause | Magistrate had a substantial basis to find probable cause; warrant and blood evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. State, 490 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (deference to trial court on historical facts in suppression hearings)
- McLain v. State, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (four‑corners review of affidavit for warrant; defer reasonable inferences)
- Oubre v. State, 542 S.W.2d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (court will not look behind allegations of affidavit)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑circumstances probable cause standard)
- Swearingen v. State, 143 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant)
- Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (probable cause requires fair probability evidence will be found)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (affidavits may be based on affiant's observations or reliable hearsay)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draw is a search/seizure under Fourth Amendment)
- Sanchez v. State, 365 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (blood draw as search; context for DWI evidence)
- Jordan v. State, 342 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (magistrate must have substantial facts establishing probable cause)
- Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (signs of intoxication list: slurred speech, glassy eyes, unsteady balance, etc.)
- Cotton v. State, 686 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (factors constituting evidence of intoxication)
- Dugas v. State, 296 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (blood draw search/seizure analysis)
- Maxwell v. State, 253 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (refusal to perform field sobriety tests may be evidence of intoxication)
- Zill v. State, 355 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (refusal to submit blood/breath can be evidence of intoxication)