State v. Jose Ruiz
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8961
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Late-night single-vehicle accident; witnesses said driver fled; officers found insurance in Jose Ruiz’s name and beer cans in the vehicle.
- Ruiz was located unconscious in a field behind a car wash, smelled of alcohol, unresponsive to sternum rubs, and transported to the hospital where he remained unconscious.
- Sgt. McBride arrested Ruiz for DWI (with four prior DWI convictions) and arranged for a hospital technician to draw blood without obtaining a warrant.
- The State conceded the blood draw was warrantless and argued it was lawful under Texas’s implied-consent statutes and/or exigent circumstances; Ruiz moved to suppress the blood evidence.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding Ruiz was unconscious, not a flight risk, a warrant could have been obtained in 2–3 hours, and McNeely governs; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas implied-consent statutes authorize warrantless blood draws from an unconscious arrestee | Implied consent (Tex. Transp. Code §§ 724.011, 724.014) deems unconscious arrestees to have not withdrawn consent, so officer may obtain blood without a warrant | Ruiz: being unconscious precludes voluntary consent; statutory implied consent does not substitute for Fourth Amendment consent exception | The court held the implied-consent provisions do not constitute a Fourth Amendment exception; the State failed to prove voluntary consent for a warrantless blood draw |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless blood draw | Time to obtain warrant (difficulty finding magistrate at midnight, only two officers on duty, 2–3 hour delay) created exigency because alcohol dissipates | Ruiz: no imminent destruction shown; physician kept him overnight; not a flight risk; alternatives (phone magistrate, faster procedures) were available | The court held exigency not established under McNeely; totality of circumstances did not show an emergency justifying warrantless blood draw |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol in bloodstream does not create per se exigency; exigency determined by totality of circumstances)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (warrantless blood draw upheld where delay to obtain warrant threatened imminent destruction of evidence)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (consent to search must be freely and voluntarily given)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (exigent-circumstances exception when needs of law enforcement are compelling under totality of circumstances)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (burden-shifting framework for suppression hearings)
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Texas implied-consent scheme does not authorize forcible blood draws without following constitutional requirements)