State v. Martinez
570 S.W.3d 278
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2019Background
- Martinez was in a car crash, taken by ambulance to a hospital where medical staff drew blood during trauma treatment; he left the hospital before tests were performed.
- Hospital retained four vials; law enforcement obtained them via a grand jury subpoena and sent them to the DPS lab for testing without a warrant.
- Martinez moved to suppress the lab results on Fourth Amendment and statutory/HIPAA grounds; the trial court granted the motion.
- The State appealed; the court of appeals affirmed. The State sought review arguing Hardy and Huse required a different result.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that (1) there is a privacy interest in blood drawn for medical purposes, (2) the State’s subsequent testing was a separate Fourth Amendment search, and (3) no warrant or exception justified the warrantless testing, so suppression was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Martinez's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez had a subjective expectation of privacy in blood drawn for medical care | Martinez had not voluntarily surrendered control; he refused testing and left without consenting to testing or relinquishing privacy | Leaving the hospital constituted abandonment; no evidence Martinez retained an expectation of privacy | Martinez had a subjective expectation of privacy; trial court’s findings supported lack of abandonment |
| Whether society would recognize that expectation as reasonable | Private, medical nature of blood and statutory privacy norms (HIPAA) show society would regard expectation as reasonable | Third-party doctrine defeats any privacy interest once blood is in hospital possession | Expectation is reasonable: third-party doctrine inapplicable because the blood was not voluntarily turned over |
| Whether government testing of hospital-drawn blood is a Fourth Amendment search | Testing by the State invades the informational content of blood and is a distinct search from the hospital draw | Reliance on Hardy/Huse to argue testing of hospital’s blood-alcohol results is not protected; Comeaux is inapplicable | Testing by the State is a separate Fourth Amendment search (Comeaux reasoning reaffirmed); Hardy/Huse do not negate that category here |
| Whether any warrant exception permitted warrantless testing | No exigency or valid exception; blood was in DPS possession and not subject to destruction | State argued prior precedents allow use of hospital testing/results without a warrant | No exception applied; warrant was required and suppression was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016) (distinguishes breath and blood testing; blood can reveal extensive private information)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (chemical analysis of biological samples constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (compelled intrusion for blood draws implicates deep privacy interests)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (qualitative digital information implicates heightened privacy concerns; warrants required to search phones)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (discusses limits of government use when private search has not frustrated privacy)
- State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (state may obtain hospital blood-alcohol test results without violating Fourth Amendment; left open whether testing by government is a separate search)
- State v. Huse, 491 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (reaffirmed Hardy and noted HIPAA could support broader privacy claims but did not change Hardy’s holding)
- State v. Comeaux, 818 S.W.2d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (plurality holding that state testing of hospital-drawn blood was a Fourth Amendment search; Court here endorses its result)