State v. Terri Sanders
535 S.W.3d 891
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 23–24, 2015, Terri Sanders caused a head-on collision that killed two people; she was transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital and later charged with intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault.
- Troopers Rachel Russell (lead investigator) and Brandon Neff responded; both observed signs suggesting intoxication (odor, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, unsteady gait); Sanders admitted drinking earlier.
- Neff began field sobriety testing; testing was interrupted and completed at the hospital where Neff read warnings, sought consent, and Sanders refused a blood draw.
- Neff signed an authorization for a nonconsensual blood draw at 1:24 a.m., explaining he feared imminent medical intervention (IV fluids, antiseptics) would impair BAC accuracy and that he lacked time to obtain a warrant; he had warrant forms on hand but did not attempt to use them.
- The trial court granted Sanders’s motion to suppress the blood-test results, finding probable cause but concluding the State failed to prove exigent circumstances (no evidence about the nature/timing of medical treatment or warrant procedures and a magistrate was nearby).
- The State appealed; the appellate majority affirmed suppression, holding under the totality of the circumstances the State did not meet its burden to show exigency; one justice dissented, arguing probable cause arose at the hospital and an imminent medical intervention created exigency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sanders) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw | Medical treatment and natural alcohol dissipation made delay to obtain a warrant impractical; limited officer availability and severity of crash created exigency | Neff had probable cause but made no attempt to get a warrant despite available officers and a nearby magistrate; no evidence emergency treatment would imminently destroy evidence | Held: No exigent circumstances; suppression affirmed (majority) |
| Whether probable cause existed prior to the blood draw | Probable cause existed from observations at scene and hospital | Probable cause not dispositive — even if present, State must show exigency to bypass warrant | Held: Trial court found probable cause existed, but exclusion turns on exigency analysis |
| Whether availability of other officers/magistrate affects exigency analysis | Availability is relevant but Cole supports warrantless draw in severe scenes | Other officers were available and lead investigator indicated personnel could assist; magistrate was nearby | Held: Availability of other officers and presence of magistrate weigh against exigency (majority) |
| Whether officer’s subjective belief about statutory authority excuses lack of warrant | Officer’s reasonable beliefs and split-second judgments support his actions | Mistaken belief does not relieve State’s burden to prove exigency; lack of attempts to procure warrant undermines State | Held: Officer’s subjective mistake insufficient; State failed to prove exigency (majority) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (warrantless blood draw held reasonable under exigent circumstances where delay to obtain warrant threatened destruction of evidence)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol is a factor but not a per se exigency; totality-of-circumstances test governs)
- Cole v. State, 490 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (severe, resource-intensive crash scene can create practical problems that justify a warrantless blood draw)
- Weems v. State, 493 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (when probable cause exists and other officers/magistrate are available and no evidence showing warrant procedures would cause destructive delay, State fails to meet exigency burden)