586 S.W.3d 451
Tex. App.2019Background
- At ~12:45 a.m. on Aug. 2, 2010, Trooper Tomlin responded to a fatal motorcycle crash; dispatch indicated a motorcycle had been struck and dragged ~800 feet.
- Sean McGuire called his mother and two police acquaintances reporting he had hit something and waited at a nearby Shell station for law enforcement; officers located him at the Shell minutes after the crash.
- Troopers observed the victim’s body at the crash scene and later saw a piece of metal with motor oil lodged in the grille of McGuire’s truck that appeared to be a motorcycle fender.
- Trooper Wiles detected a strong odor of alcohol on McGuire, noted bloodshot/glassy eyes and a dazed appearance; McGuire refused field sobriety tests and later reacted emotionally at the crash scene.
- McGuire was arrested without a warrant; the trial court granted a motion to suppress evidence obtained from that arrest. Justice Keyes dissented, arguing the arrest was lawful under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 14.03(a)(1) (the "suspicious place" exception).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless arrest under article 14.03(a)(1) (suspicious place) | State: Shell station + surrounding circumstances provided probable cause and made location "suspicious" permitting warrantless arrest | McGuire: Arrest was illegal; evidence should be suppressed | Keyes (dissent): Arrest lawful under 14.03(a)(1); trial court abused discretion in suppressing evidence |
| Probable cause to arrest for intoxication-related offense | State: Officers had reasonably trustworthy facts (timing, admissions, odor, red/glassy eyes, vehicle damage) supporting reasonable belief McGuire committed a crime | McGuire: Facts insufficient to establish probable cause for arrest | Keyes: Probable cause existed given totality of circumstances |
| Exigency and applicability of Missouri v. McNeely (warrantless blood draws) | State: Even if exigency required, need to preserve blood-alcohol and crash evidence supported immediate arrest | McGuire: McNeely limits exigency; warrant could be obtained so arrest/search impermissible | Keyes: McNeely governs warrantless blood draws, not arrests; exigency to preserve evidence (BAC and crash evidence) justified arrest under totality of circumstances |
| Preservation/forfeiture of arguments on appeal | State: Issue of exigency was not treated as a discrete statutory element and McGuire never raised lack of exigency at suppression hearing; State preserved its 14.03(a)(1) argument | McGuire: Court and majority treated exigency as necessary and concluded State failed to show it | Keyes: State did not forfeit 14.03(a)(1); it proved exigency and arrest lawful — suppression improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol is a factor in exigency analysis for warrantless blood draws)
- Gallups v. State, 151 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (need to ascertain blood-alcohol level can constitute exigency justifying warrantless arrest under suspicious place exception)
- Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (article 14.03(a)(1) suspicious-place test requires totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Dyar v. State, 125 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (probable cause plus suspicious place required for warrantless arrest under article 14.03(a)(1))
- Cole v. State, 490 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (McNeely exigency analysis must consider totality of circumstances; availability of officers alone is not dispositive)
- Sanchez v. State, 365 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (distinguishing searches and seizures; searches intrude more on privacy than arrests)
- Lewis v. State, 412 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013) (officer’s need to promptly ascertain blood-alcohol level can satisfy exigency under article 14.03(a)(1))
- Dansby v. State, 530 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017) (recognizing exigency to preserve BAC as justifying immediate arrest under suspicious place exception)