State v. Jordan
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 911
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Jed Jordan was charged with misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated in Travis County, Texas.
- An affidavit for a blood-seizure search warrant stated police observed intoxication and driving the wrong way, but did not specify the date/time of those observations.
- The magistrate issued the blood warrant at 3:54 a.m. on June 6, 2008.
- The trial court suppressed the blood evidence, and the Third Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on lack of a specified time/date for the observations.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the totality of the circumstances supports probable cause even without explicit timing, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether totality of the circumstances supports probable cause | Jordan argues lack of precise timing defeats probable cause. | Jordan contends the affidavit’s facts are insufficient without time. | Probable cause exists under totality of circumstances. |
| Whether the introductory statement that the offense occurred on a date can support probable cause | The date-alone assertion is insufficient. | The date, combined with underlying facts, suffices. | Introductory date with described observations supports probable cause here. |
| Whether the affidavit must specify the exact time of the stop | Time is critical for reliability and precision. | Near-immediate warrant issuance makes imprecision tolerable. | Time need not be explicit; four-hour window supports probable cause. |
| Whether retrograde extrapolation is required to prove intoxication timing | Retrograde extrapolation is necessary for BAC timing. | Any amount of alcohol can be probative of intoxication. | Retrograde extrapolation not required; blood evidence can be probative of intoxication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates v. United States, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause review is common-sense and totality-based)
- Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41 (1933) (bare bones affidavits insufficient for probable cause)
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) (requirement of underlying circumstances for probable cause)
- Schmidt v. State, 659 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. Cr. App. 1983) (timing of events critical to determine probable cause)
- Garza v. State, 120 Tex. Crim. 147 (1932) (date of observation must align with date of offense)
- Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010) (magistrate may interpret facts in a common-sense manner)
- Cassias v. State, 719 S.W.2d 585 (Tex. Cr. App. 1986) (limits on conclusory statements in affidavits)
- Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Cr. App. 2001) (timing and reliability considerations in probable cause)
- Stewart v. State, 129 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. Cr. App. 2004) (breath-test results relevant to intoxication timing)
- Mechler v. State, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Cr. App. 2005) (breath-test context and evidentiary probative value)