State v. Gerardo Jerry Ayala
03-14-00651-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 1, 2015Background
- Defendant Gerardo Jerry Ayala was subject to a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw after a suspected DWI stop; trial court granted motion to suppress the blood-draw results.
- State sought to admit the blood results relying on Tex. Transp. Code § 724.011(b) (the so‑called “mandatory” blood‑draw statute) and argued the statute rendered the draw lawful.
- Trial court found no exigent circumstances that would justify a warrantless blood draw.
- Appellee (Ayala) argues Villarreal and McNeely control and that the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment and required suppression under Texas and federal law.
- Appellee contends Texas’s exclusionary rule (Art. 38.23) bars admission and that the federal good‑faith exception does not apply because reliance on an undecided statutory/constitutional question cannot sustain good‑faith protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ayala) | Held / Outcome (as argued in brief) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether blood drawn under Tex. Transp. Code § 724.011(b) is admissible without a warrant | §724.011(b) mandates/justifies the blood draw; statute is constitutionally reasonable | Villarreal and McNeely show a warrantless mandatory draw violates the Fourth Amendment absent an exception | Warrantless draw unconstitutional when no exception applies; Villarreal controls and supports suppression |
| 2. Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless blood draw | Officer reliance on DWI and statutory mandate could create exigency | Trial court found no exigent circumstances; record supports that finding | No exigent circumstances; suppression proper absent exigency |
| 3. Whether Texas exclusionary rule (Art. 38.23) bars use of the blood results | State implies doctrines like attenuation or independent source could allow admission | Attenuation/independent‑source do not apply—blood was sole source of evidence; Art. 38.23 requires exclusion | Art. 38.23 applies; evidence should be excluded because it was "obtained" unlawfully |
| 4. Whether the federal good‑faith exception permits admission of the blood results | Officers acted in good faith relying on statute and existing practice | Good‑faith exception inapplicable because the legal question was unsettled; officers could not reasonably rely on an undecided statutory constitutional interpretation | Federal good‑faith exception does not apply; federal exclusionary rule requires suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (warrant required absent case‑specific exigency for blood draws in DWI investigations)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (warrantless searches of persons require a recognized exception)
- Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (deference to trial court on historical facts, de novo review of law)
- State v. Johnson, 871 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (attenuation doctrine analyzed as a method to determine whether evidence was "obtained" unlawfully under Art. 38.23)
- Wehrenberg v. State, 416 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App.) (independent source doctrine discussion)