581 S.W.3d 782
Tex. Crim. App.2019Background:
- Appellee was involved in a crash and found unconscious in a field; EMS transported him to a hospital.
- Sgt. McBride arrested him at the hospital and, although he remained unconscious, read statutory DWI warnings and ordered a warrantless blood draw.
- The blood draw was performed pursuant to Texas Transportation Code §§ 724.011 (statutory "implied consent" for drivers) and 724.014 (treating unconscious persons as not having withdrawn implied consent).
- Trial court granted Ruiz’s motion to suppress the blood-test results; the court of appeals affirmed that suppression on the consent ground.
- The State sought review to (1) argue that statutory implied consent equals voluntary consent under the Fourth Amendment, and (2) argue exigent circumstances justified the warrantless draw; the Court granted review on the consent issue and declined to uphold implied consent as a Fourth Amendment consent exception.
- The Court affirmed the court of appeals on the consent issue and vacated/remanded the exigent-circumstances ruling for reconsideration in light of Mitchell v. Wisconsin.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory implied consent from driving supplies voluntary consent for a blood draw when the driver is unconscious | State: Driving on public roads creates enduring implied consent that was not revoked | Ruiz: Unconsciousness prevents any voluntary consent or ability to revoke; consent is involuntary | Court: Implied consent in these circumstances is not "free and voluntary"; consent exception fails (affirmed) |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw | State: Exigent circumstances (e.g., alcohol dissipation) justified warrantless draw | Ruiz: No exigency shown to override warrant requirement | Court: Did not resolve; vacated lower court’s holding and remanded for reconsideration in light of Mitchell v. Wisconsin |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019) (Supreme Court guidance on exigent-circumstances blood draws from unconscious drivers)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (warrant generally required for blood alcohol tests; exigency assessed by totality of circumstances)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (State must prove consent was freely and voluntarily given)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) (consent and whether will was overborne consider capacity for self-determination)
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (scope of consent evaluated by a reasonable-person/totality inquiry)
- Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (consent involuntariness when will overborne)