State v. Frances Anita Robinson
03-15-00153-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Single-vehicle crash in a populated subdivision around 1:04 a.m.; passenger (fiancé) was killed and the driver, Frances Anita Robinson, was injured and transported by EMS to a San Antonio hospital ~38–40 miles away.
- DPS Trooper Richard Alvarez was the lead investigator at the scene; he spent roughly 2½–3 hours processing the scene (photographing, marking evidence, securing scene) and testified that the scene functioned as a crime scene and required his continuous presence.
- Alvarez observed signs of intoxication on Robinson, concluded probable cause existed for intoxication manslaughter, and requested a trooper at the hospital to obtain Robinson’s blood under Texas’s mandatory-blood-draw statute if she refused consent.
- Trooper Rodney Zarate obtained a non-consensual, warrantless blood draw at the hospital at about 4:40 a.m., over three hours after the crash.
- The trial court granted Robinson’s motion to suppress, finding the State had not shown exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless blood draw; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw | Lead investigator reasonably believed delay to obtain a warrant would dissipate blood-alcohol evidence and undermine investigation; scene required his continuous presence; limited qualified personnel; practical obstacles (distance, weather, fatality) made obtaining a warrant impractical | Magistrate was available (county had on-call judge/no-refusal policy); officers were present who could have sought a warrant; obtaining a warrant by fax could take 30–90 minutes, so exigency not established | Reversed suppression: exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw under the totality-of-the-circumstances, following Cole v. State |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (warrantless blood draw can be reasonable where delay to obtain a warrant risks destruction of evidence)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol is relevant to exigency; exigency is case-specific)
- Weems v. State, 493 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (warrantless blood draw not justified where record lacks proof of practical obstacles to obtaining a warrant)
- Cole v. State, 490 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (warrantless blood draw justified where severe accident, death, scene-control needs, and lack of available personnel made obtaining a warrant impractical)