State v. Robert Simpson
03-15-00499-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 8, 2015Background
- On March 29, 2014 Trooper Erich Herd arrested Robert Simpson for DWI; officer learned defendant had two prior DWI convictions and read statutory DIC-24 warnings.
- Defendant refused voluntary blood draw; Trooper Herd directed a hospital nurse to take a warrantless blood sample relying on Tex. Transp. Code §§ 724.011/724.012.
- Defendant moved to suppress the blood-test results arguing a Fourth Amendment violation; the trial court granted the motion.
- Trial court found no consent, no exigent circumstances, the draw violated the Fourth Amendment, and suppressed the blood evidence under federal and Texas exclusionary rules.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) the statutory mandatory, warrantless blood draw is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and (2) alternatively, the officer acted on a reasonable mistake of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a statutory mandatory warrantless blood draw (Tex. Transp. Code §724.012(b)(3)(B)) is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | State: statute serves significant public interests (safety, preserving evidence), is narrowly tailored, minimally intrusive, and therefore reasonable under a balancing test | Simpson: warrantless blood draw without consent or exigency violates the Fourth Amendment; evidence must be suppressed | Trial court: Suppression granted — no warrant, no consent, no exigent circumstances; Fourth Amendment violated |
| Whether an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can cure a Fourth Amendment violation for conducting a warrantless blood draw | State: under Heien, reasonable legal mistakes justify seizures; officer reasonably relied on longstanding statutory practice | Simpson: reliance on statute does not excuse constitutional violation absent a recognized warrant exception | Trial court: Did not accept this defense as avoiding suppression; evidence suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957) (blood draw as minimally intrusive search under certain circumstances)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (reasonable mistake of law can make a seizure reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (balancing test for certain suspects-based DNA collection; assessing government interests vs. privacy)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (dissipation of blood-alcohol is not per se exigency; exigency must be determined case-by-case)
- Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) (limits on bodily intrusions for evidence recovery)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (consideration of compulsion in criminal procedure contexts)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (drug/alcohol testing and diminished privacy expectations)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood test allowed under exigent circumstances balancing)
- Neesley v. State, 239 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discussing scope and limits of mandatory-draw statutes)
- Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (presumption of constitutionality for statutes)
- State v. Johnston, 336 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonableness considerations for blood draws and statutory limits)