State v. David Villarreal
476 S.W.3d 45
Tex. App.2014Background
- Villarreal was arrested for DWI; officers learned he had three prior DWI convictions and transported him to a hospital for a blood draw after he refused to provide a sample voluntarily.
- There was no warrant, no consent (the State stipulated "no consent, no warrant"), and the State conceded no exigent circumstances existed; the blood test showed a .16 BAC.
- Villarreal moved to suppress the blood-test evidence; at the suppression hearing he limited his challenge to the constitutionality of the repeat-offender mandatory blood-draw provision as applied to him.
- The trial court found the officer credible, found probable cause to arrest, found the officer could have obtained a warrant, and granted the motion to suppress, concluding the blood draw was unconstitutional without a warrant or exigent circumstances.
- The State appealed, arguing that compliance with the repeat-offender provision of Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b)(3)(B) made the involuntary, warrantless draw reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- The court of appeals affirmed the suppression order, holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances, the Fourth Amendment required a warrant despite the mandatory-draw statute as applied in these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Villarreal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compliance with Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b)(3)(B) permits a warrantless involuntary blood draw of a repeat DWI offender | Statute authorizes (and requires) mandatory blood draws of repeat offenders, so the officer’s statutory compliance made the warrantless draw reasonable | The statute cannot supplant the Fourth Amendment; absent consent or exigency a warrant is required | Held: Statute does not eliminate warrant requirement as applied here; suppression affirmed |
| Whether implied or legislative consent substitutes for actual consent in this case | The repeat-offender framework effectuates a legislative (implied) consent or waiver for repeat offenders | There was no actual consent; statute cannot force consent or dispense with warrant absent exigency | Held: No consent by stipulation; statute cannot be treated as a free-standing exception to the warrant requirement |
| Whether exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless draw | (State conceded none) | (Villarreal) No exigent circumstances | Held: No exigent circumstances; obtaining a warrant was practicable |
| Whether the officer’s compliance with a mandatory statute shields him from Fourth Amendment scrutiny | Statutory command justifies officer action and removes constitutional defect | Statute cannot authorize what the Constitution forbids; officer should have obtained a warrant | Held: Statutory compliance did not cure constitutional violation in these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (compulsory blood tests are searches implicating bodily integrity; warrants ordinarily required absent emergency)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (warrantless blood draws require case-specific exigency; warrants required where reasonably obtainable)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (prosecution bears burden to prove consent was voluntary)
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App.) (implied-consent framework explained; warrants ordinarily control when intrusion is into the body)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant bears initial burden to show a warrantless search occurred; then State must prove exception)