Smith, William A/K/A Bill Smith
PD-1615-14
Tex. App.Apr 3, 2015Background
- William Smith was arrested for DWI; Trooper Anguiano drew his blood without a warrant under a provision of the Texas Transportation Code.
- Smith objected at trial that the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment; the trial court admitted the blood-test results and convicted Smith.
- On appeal the Thirteenth Court of Appeals held the statute authorizing mandatory blood draws was constitutional on its face but was unconstitutionally applied in Smith’s case because officers made no attempt to obtain a warrant.
- The State sought discretionary review to challenge that application and to argue the statute authorizes warrantless blood draws; Smith’s brief urges denial of review and defends the court of appeals’ application of Fourth Amendment precedent.
- Central legal question: whether the Transportation Code (or other exceptions) permits warrantless compelled blood draws from DWI arrestees in light of U.S. Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the warrant requirement for blood draws.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does the Transportation Code authorize warrantless blood draws? | Statute authorizes mandatory blood draws and therefore permits officers to take blood without a warrant. | The Transportation Code cannot override the Fourth Amendment; it does not eliminate the warrant requirement. | Court of Appeals: statute constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as applied when no warrant effort was made. |
| 2. Was Smith’s warrantless blood draw reasonable under McNeely exigency analysis? | (Implicit) Dissipation of alcohol or administrative needs justify immediate draw. | McNeely requires case-by-case exigency showing; officer made no attempt to obtain a warrant, so draw was unreasonable. | Held: application unconstitutional—officer did not attempt to obtain a warrant; McNeely governs. |
| 3. Do other exceptions (automobile, special needs, consent, search-incident-to-arrest) justify the draw? | Various exceptions or diminished privacy for arrestees support warrantless extraction. | Automobile and special-needs rationales do not apply to forced blood draws from a detained person; consent was not given; search-incident-to-arrest does not cover this intrusion. | Held: none of the claimed exceptions justified warrantless blood draw on these facts. |
| 4. Was Smith’s Fourth Amendment objection preserved for appeal? | State contends objection was untimely and forfeited. | Counsel timely objected and reurged suppression; in a bench trial timing is less critical—issue preserved. | Court of Appeals found preservation adequate; Smith urges this Court to deny review on timeliness grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (dissipation of alcohol is not a per se exigency; exigency must be assessed case-by-case)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant requirement emphasized for highly privacy-intrusive searches of arrestees)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (warrantless searches of the person are unreasonable unless an established exception applies)
- Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) (compelled intrusions into the body implicate profound privacy interests)
- Aviles v. State, 443 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (on remand after McNeely, court held a warrantless blood draw unconstitutional as applied)