Villarreal, David
PD-0306-14
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2015Background
- David Villarreal, a suspected repeat DWI offender, was arrested for driving while intoxicated and subjected to a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw under Texas Transportation Code §§ 724.011(a) (implied consent) and 724.012(b) (mandatory blood draw).
- Officer Williams expressly relied on the state statutory authority to require the blood specimen and did not invoke a common-law or constitutional exception to the warrant requirement.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals previously held (2014) that the warrantless blood draw was a Fourth Amendment search lacking a recognized exception and thus unconstitutional.
- The State sought rehearing, arguing statutory authority and the suspect’s status as a repeat offender justified the warrantless draw.
- Justice Richardson concurred in denying rehearing, explaining that neither the statute nor the suspect’s status creates a Supreme Court–recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw under Texas §§ 724.011/724.012(b) is a reasonable Fourth Amendment search | The State: statute authorizes mandatory blood draws from repeat DWI suspects, making the search reasonable | Villarreal: statutory authorization does not overcome the Fourth Amendment; no recognized exception applies | The court: Warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment; statute and repeat-offender status do not create an exception |
| Whether a defendant’s status as a repeat DWI offender creates a separate exception to the warrant requirement | The State: repeat offender status lessens privacy expectations, justifying warrantless drawing | Villarreal: status alone cannot create a new Fourth Amendment exception | The court: Repeat-offender status is not a Supreme Court–recognized exception and cannot validate a warrantless search |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (exigent-circumstances analysis for blood draws; natural dissipation of alcohol not a per se exigency)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrantless searches are reasonable only if they fit a specific exception)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable; only a few delineated exceptions exist)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (discussing limits of exceptions to warrant requirement)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (describing per se unreasonableness of searches outside judicial process absent established exceptions)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (foundational Fourth Amendment principle protecting persons, houses, papers, and effects)