Rodriguez, Javier, PD-0828-15

Background

The State petitions for discretionary review of a suppression ruling in Javier Rodriguez’s case arising from a multi-vehicle crash and a blood draw conducted without a warrant.
Rodriguez was arrested for DWI-related intoxication assault; a blood sample was drawn at the hospital after the arrest.
The trial court granted a motion to suppress the blood test results; the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression in an unpublished memorandum.
The State argues that the Texas Transportation Code's implied-consent/mandatory-draw provisions provide a constitutionally valid exception to the warrant requirement and raises related questions.
Key issues include whether failure to explicitly refuse to submit defeats Section 724.012 authority, and whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless draw.
The petition requests discretionary review and remand guidance to determine whether findings of fact should have been entered and preserved for appellate review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Implied consent as a warrant alternative	State argues implied consent/mandatory draw can replace a warrant.	Rodriguez contends the statute does not constitutionally permit a non-warrant blood draw.	State may not rely on statute alone; requires case-by-case analysis of exigency.
Effect of silence/refusal on 724.012	State asserts no explicit refusal is needed to trigger mandatory draw under 724.012.	Rodriguez argues the absence of a refusal does not authorize a warrantless draw absent proper consent/ exigent basis.	Statutory framework cannot defeat the warrant requirement without proper consent or exigent justification.
Exigent circumstances and timing for a blood warrant	State contends exigency exists under McNeely and related cases as a reason to forgo a warrant.	Rodriguez argues there was no legally cognizable exigency and that delay to obtain a warrant was feasible.	Court rejects exigiency based on the record; exigency not proven here.
Judicial focus on officer’s subjective belief	State claims appellate review improperly considered the officer’s subjective belief about needing a warrant.	Rodriguez asserts the appellate court properly rejected subjective motivation in favor of objective standards.	Exigency analysis must be objective; subjective belief cannot justify warrantless draw.
Need for remand for factual findings	State seeks remand for trial-court findings of fact on credibility and the suppression ruling.	Rodriguez argues no remand is necessary because the record supports the ruling.	Appellate court should remand for findings where credibility is in dispute; here, findings were lacking.

Key Cases Cited

Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (exigent circumstances require objective analysis)
Brimage v. State, 918 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (exigent circumstances and reasonableness in searches)
Colburn v. State, 966 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (foundational standards for suppression review)
State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (necessity of findings of fact in suppression rulings)
Garcia v. State, 15 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for evaluating blood draw suppression and related rights)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (objective standard for exigent circumstances; police-created exigencies)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (case-by-case evaluation of exigent circumstances for warrantless blood draws)
Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (probable cause and timing considerations in DWI investigations)