Tercero, Allen
PD-0838-15
| Tex. App. | Jul 7, 2015Background
- Tercero was stopped late at night for a suspected DWI; he exhibited odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech.
- He was arrested for DWI after declining field sobriety tests; had two prior DWI convictions.
- Police transported him to a hospital and conducted a mandatory blood draw over his objection.
- Tercero moved to suppress evidence, arguing the blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment as interpreted after Missouri v. McNeely.
- The trial court granted suppression; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression ruling on April 2, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless blood draw can be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | State argues implied consent and statutory authorization support reasonableness. | Tercero contends withdrawal of consent and lack of warrant render the draw unreasonable. | Awaiting discretionary-review decision; petitioner seeks reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (exclusionary-rule considerations in blood-draw contexts)
- Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (limits of implied-consent and warrantless searches under Texas law)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (probable-cause and reasonableness standards in searches like sobriety contexts)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (probation/administrative contexts and Fourth Amendment considerations)