State v. Benjamin DeLaRosa
13-14-00496-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 26, 2015Background
- On July 28, 2013 police obtained a warrant to draw Benjamin DeLaRosa’s blood after a vehicle accident; the warrant affidavit was sworn by Officer Gary Williams.
- DeLaRosa was unconscious in the hospital; Williams admitted DeLaRosa did not actively consent and neither Williams nor Lt. Broyles actually observed DeLaRosa driving.
- Williams’ affidavit stated (in a filled form) that Lt. Broyles told him Broyles observed the suspect operating the vehicle; Broyles testified he was two miles away and did not see who was driving.
- The trial court held a Franks hearing, found Williams made false statements in the affidavit, excised those statements, and concluded the remaining affidavit lacked probable cause for the blood-warrant.
- The trial court also granted DeLaRosa’s motion to suppress the blood because no exigency justified a warrantless draw and mandatory/implicit-consent provisions of the Transportation Code were not properly applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (DeLaRosa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying State’s motion to reconsider that a mandatory warrantless blood draw under Tex. Transp. Code §724.012 justified no warrant | §724.012 authorizes a mandatory blood draw (and thus no warrant needed) when elements (operator, accident, serious injury/death) are met | §724.012 cannot override Fourth Amendment; statute was not strictly complied with here (no proof DeLaRosa was operator; no refusal recorded); McNeely requires case-by-case exigency | Trial court: statute does not by itself justify warrantless draw; State failed to show statutory prerequisites and exigency; suppression affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred in denying State’s motion to suppress because exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless blood draw | Blood alcohol evidence is evanescent; DeLaRosa was unconscious and could not consent, creating exigency that justified immediate draw | No exigency shown: officers had time to seek a warrant; McNeely forbids categorical rule—must evaluate facts; here warrant was actually obtained, so no emergency | Trial court: no exigency shown given available time to secure a warrant; warrantless draw unreasonable |
| Whether trial court erred in granting Franks hearing ruling that Williams made false statements and that, after excision, affidavit lacked probable cause | Alleged misstatements were mere procedural mistakes and not material; magistrate had discretion to issue warrant | Williams knowingly included false basis (Broyles observed) though Broyles did not; Section 5 basis was material; without false statements affidavit lacked probable cause | Trial court: Williams made material false statements; excising them leaves insufficient probable cause; warrant invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (no per se exigency for blood draws; exigency assessed case-by-case)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (warrantless blood draw upheld where particular facts created exigency)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (defendant may challenge affidavit statements as false and obtain hearing; material falsehoods must be excised)
- Alford v. State, 400 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (appellate review principles for suppression rulings)
- McClintock v. State, 444 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (deference to magistrate not required when affidavit is reassessed after excision of false allegations)
- State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standards for suppression and consent issues)