Rodriguez, Javier
PD-0828-15
| Tex. | Jul 22, 2015Background
- Javier Rodriguez was arrested for DWI and had his blood drawn without a warrant while in the hospital; officer testified he believed the Transportation Code authorized mandatory blood draws.
- At the time of the blood draw, about 50 minutes had elapsed after Rodriguez was notified his license would be suspended; no magistrate was contacted and no warrant application was attempted.
- Trial court granted Rodriguez’s motion to suppress the blood evidence; the court explained on the record that the State did not prove exigent circumstances and there was no affirmative consent.
- The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression, reasoning the Transportation Code does not create a warrant exception and the State failed to show exigent circumstances.
- The State sought discretionary review; Rodriguez filed a reply urging denial, relying on Missouri v. McNeely and this Court’s Villarreal decision.
- Key contested facts: officer’s testimony that he relied on the statute (not exigency), lack of any attempt to obtain a warrant, and timing (50-minute gap between license-suspension notice and blood draw).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Rodriguez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Texas Transportation Code §724.012 allows warrantless mandatory blood draws (i.e., creates a statutory exception to the warrant requirement) | The statute authorizes mandatory draws so no warrant was necessary | The statute does not override the Fourth Amendment; McNeely controls and the Code is not a warrant exception | Court of Appeals and respondent: Transportation Code does not create a constitutional exception; warrant required absent proven exigency |
| Whether lack of an explicit refusal removes the case from §724.012(a)/(b) analysis | Implied or deemed consent under statute can apply; waiver argument raised | Officer never sought consent and relied on §724.012(b); allowing assumed consent would nullify statutory right to refuse | Court of Appeals: implied-consent arguments waived; core holding turned on warrant requirement, not refusal timing |
| Whether officer was required to anticipate later finding probable cause or prove exigency | State suggests officer need not have anticipated probable cause; exigency can be presumed from delay concerns | Rodriguez: State had to show exigent circumstances on the facts; officer never sought a warrant or measured actual delay | Court of Appeals: did not impose anticipation duty; held State failed to show exigent circumstances given the record and lack of attempts to obtain a warrant |
| Whether reviewing courts improperly relied on officer’s subjective belief (he didn’t need a warrant) rather than objective facts | State contends appellate reliance on officer’s subjective belief was error | Rodriguez: officer’s subjective decision led to absence of objective evidence of exigency; that lack is dispositive | Court of Appeals: objective record contained no evidence of attempts to obtain a warrant or imminent loss of evidence; officer’s choice to not seek a warrant meant State failed its burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (Sup. Ct.) (natural metabolization of alcohol does not create a per se exigency; exigency must be assessed case-by-case)
- Cullen v. State, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (remand for findings of fact required only where factual disputes exist)