State v. Mosely
348 S.W.3d 435
Tex. App.2011Background
- Mosely, involved in a fatal traffic accident, underwent a blood draw to test BAC; the State charged him with DWI under Tex. Penal Code § 49.04.
- Trooper Campos believed Mosely could be subject to a mandatory blood draw and explained two options: voluntary draw or arrest with mandatory draw.
- Mosely allegedly consented after Campos explained the law, but testimony at suppression conflicted over voluntariness and arrest status.
- Nurse White drew Mosely’s blood; Mosely’s BAC was .19, and the State later charged him with DWI.
- The trial court suppressed the blood-draw evidence, finding no voluntary consent and no arrest-supported statutory authority; the State appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed the suppression order, holding the blood draw was unlawful because no probable cause-supported arrest existed and consent was not voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of involuntary blood draw | Mosely challenges involuntary draw under Fourth Amendment. | State claims involuntary draw justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances. | No probable cause or lawful involuntary draw; suppression affirmed. |
| Statutory authorization under Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b) | Statute cannot authorize unconstitutional conduct; no arrest supported by probable cause. | Statute permits blood draw when statutory criteria met and refusal occurs. | Statute cannot authorize an unconstitutional act; no arrest, no mandatory draw. |
| Voluntariness of Mosely's consent | Consent was not positive, unequivocal, and not freely given; officer misstate affected voluntariness. | Mosely allegedly consented after law explanation. | Consent not voluntary; the trial court’s finding supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draw as search; exigent circumstances require proper basis for warrantless draw)
- Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrest; totality of circumstances)
- Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (involuntary blood draw requirements; statutory supplement to constitutional rules)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (consent must be positive, unequivocal, and not coerced; Texas constitutional standard of clear and convincing evidence)
- Knisley v. State, 81 S.W.3d 478 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002) (statutory provisions do not override constitutional requirements; need probable cause)