State v. Jose Angel Flores, Jr., 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9995

This is an interlocutory appeal from the Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas reversing a suppression order regarding a DWI blood draw from Flores.
Deputy Williams stopped Flores for observed traffic violations on IH-10 and arrested him after smelling alcohol and seeing an open beer and slurred speech.
The arresting officer asked dispatch to run Flores’s background; dispatch reported two prior DWI convictions from NCIC/TCIC, which the officer relied on to justify a mandatory blood draw under 724.012(b)(3)(B).
The trial court found the dispatcher credible but concluded the information was not reliable under 724.012(b)(3)(B); the blood draw was suppressed.
On appeal, the court held Flores failed to prove a prima facie violation of 724.012(b)(3)(B) and reversed the suppression order, remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in finding the information unreliable under 724.012(b)(3)(B).	Flores argued the dispatcher’s information was unreliable.	The State argued the information could be reliable; Flores bore the burden to show unreliability at suppression.	No error; the information was not proven unreliable; the suppression order was reversed and remanded.

State v. Robinson, 334 S.W.3d 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (burden of proof at suppression shifts after statutory violation shown by movant)
State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (remand for critical findings under 724.012(b)(3)(B))
Comperry v. State, 375 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (reliability/credibility of NCIC/TCIC information; interplay with 724.012(b)(3)(B))
Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (implied-consent blood draw framework; limits on safeguards for voluntary vs. mandatory draws)