Robert Rene Torres v. State
03-14-00541-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 13, 2015Background
- Defendant Robert Rene Torres had a warrantless blood draw following a DWI arrest; the State contends the draw was mandated by Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b)(3)(B) because of prior DWI convictions.
- The State moved to admit the blood evidence; the trial court admitted it and defendant appealed the admission.
- The State’s brief argues the warrantless draw did not violate the Fourth Amendment, or alternatively that any violation does not require exclusion under Texas or federal rules.
- The State advances two primary defenses: (1) the mandatory-draw statute is constitutionally reasonable under a Fourth Amendment balancing test; (2) even if unconstitutional, the officer reasonably relied on existing law/statute (good-faith or reasonable mistake of law).
- The brief acknowledges a conflicting Court of Criminal Appeals decision (Villarreal) that held mandatory warrantless draws violate the Fourth Amendment but notes Villarreal was not final and the State sought rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument (Plaintiff) | Torres' Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless blood draw mandated by Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b)(3)(B) violated the Fourth Amendment | Statute is constitutionally reasonable under a balancing test; the State’s interests (safety, preservation of BAC evidence) outweigh privacy intrusion | Warrantless compelled blood draw is an unreasonable search absent a warrant or recognized exception | Trial court admitted evidence; State asks appellate court to affirm admission |
| Whether an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can render the search constitutional | Under Heien, reasonable legal mistakes render stops/searches reasonable; officer reasonably believed statute mandated the draw | Defendant contends belief was incorrect and search was unlawful | State argues mistake-of-law defense; trial court sided with admissibility |
| Whether Texas exclusionary rule (Art. 38.23) bars the evidence if law changed after the draw (post-McNeely) | Article 38.23 does not apply because at the time police acted the search conformed to then-controlling Texas precedent (exigency per se) | Defendant argues McNeely retroactively renders the 2012 draw unlawful and requires exclusion | Trial court admitted evidence; State urges that evidence was obtained consistent with law at the time and thus not excluded under Art. 38.23 |
| Whether the federal exclusionary rule requires suppression despite pre-McNeely conduct | Federal good-faith exceptions apply: (1) reliance on binding precedent (Davis); (2) reliance on a statute later held unconstitutional (Krull) — both justify admission | Defendant argues exclusion required because search violated Fourth Amendment under controlling Supreme Court precedent (McNeely) | State contends exclusionary rule should not apply; trial court admitted evidence and State asks appellate affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (Texas precedent treating alcohol dissipation as exigent circumstances)
- Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (statutory interpretation preferring reasonable constructions)
- Neesley v. State, 239 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discussing statutory scope and arrestee expectations)
- Johnston v. State, 336 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonableness of blood testing and statutory limits)
- Laird v. State, 38 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref’d) (holding dissipation establishes exigency under Texas law at the time)
- State v. Johnson, 871 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (principles on attenuation and exclusion)
- Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1957) (blood tests as minimally intrusive searches)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (good-faith reliance on binding precedent may preclude exclusion)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (good-faith reliance on statute later invalidated can excuse exclusion)