Robert Randall Krause v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4048
Tex. App.2012Background
- Krause was arrested for driving while intoxicated and his blood was drawn without a warrant at LBJ Hospital.
- The blood was drawn by Rachel Lopez, who held an EMT-I license and worked in the hospital's emergency room.
- Krause moved to suppress the blood test results on the ground that Lopez was not a “qualified technician” under Tex. Transp. Code §724.017.
- The trial court denied suppression despite Lopez being an EMS personnel and the statute’s exclusion.
- The appellate court ultimately agreed the State’s interpretation rendered §724.017(c) unambiguous and sustained Krause’s issue, reversing and remanding for a new trial.
- The court emphasized §724.017(c) creates a bright-line exclusion of EMS personnel from the pool of “qualified technicians.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EMS personnel can be “qualified technicians” under §724.017 | Lopez falls within EMS personnel, thus not qualified | Lopez is not a qualified technician; EMS personnel are excluded | Yes; EMS personnel are excluded; Krause prevails |
| Whether Lopez qualifies as a “qualified technician” despite the exclusion | Lopez’s EMT-I training makes her qualified | Statute excludes EMS personnel regardless of training | No; Lopez is not a qualified technician under §724.017(a) due to the exclusion |
| Role of legislative history and policy considerations | Legislative history supports treating hospital EMS as qualified | Policy concerns should be addressed by Legislature | Court declines to rewrite statute absent ambiguity; relies on text |
| Choice of standard in interpreting §724.017 | Plain language yields EMS exclusion | Common-sense reading could broaden qualifications | Unambiguous plain-language interpretation; EMS excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Laird, 38 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (EMS personnel not qualified technicians under §724.017; bright-line rule)
- State v. Johnston, 336 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness not controlling for §724.017; distinguishes inapplicability to warrantless draws)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (legislative intent and statutory interpretation considerations)
- Ojo v. Farmers Group Inc., 356 S.W.3d 421 (Tex. 2011) (legislative history, later bills; caution in interpreting statutory changes)
- Graff v. Beard, 858 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. 1993) (statutory interpretation and policy considerations in public law)