Villarreal, David
PD-0306-14
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2015Background
- Corpus Christi police stopped David Villarreal on March 31, 2012; officers observed signs of intoxication and arrested him for DWI.
- Villarreal refused a blood draw; officers discovered he had multiple prior DWI convictions (at least three) and transported him to a hospital for a nonconsensual blood draw under a Texas statute mandating draws for drivers with two or more prior DWI convictions.
- No warrant was obtained; the blood test showed a BAC of 0.16. Villarreal was indicted for felony DWI based on prior convictions and the blood result.
- Villarreal moved to suppress the blood result under the Fourth Amendment relying on Missouri v. McNeely; the trial court granted suppression and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The dissenting opinion (K-Easler, J.) would have reversed: it finds no exigency but concludes the warrantless blood draw was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment after a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis emphasizing recidivist status, regulatory character, reasonable procedures, and the legislative scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment | Villarreal: McNeely requires exigent circumstances for warrantless blood draws; none existed, so suppression required | State: statutory mandate for recidivists and public-safety interests render the draw reasonable without a warrant | Dissent would hold the draw reasonable under totality of circumstances despite lack of exigency; trial court suppressed and court of appeals affirmed earlier decision |
| Whether natural dissipation of alcohol creates a per se exigency | Villarreal: dissipation alone does not create per se exigency under McNeely | State: dissipation and need for prompt testing justify warrantless draw for recidivists | McNeely rejects dissipation-as-per-se-exigency; dissent nonetheless finds reasonableness on other grounds |
| Whether Villarreal’s recidivist status diminishes his privacy expectation | Villarreal: status alone insufficient to eliminate Fourth Amendment protections | State: recidivist status meaningfully lowers expectation of privacy akin to parole/probation cases | Dissent: recidivist DWI status significantly diminishes privacy and supports reasonableness |
| Whether the manner and place of the blood draw were reasonable | Villarreal: even reasonable procedure cannot cure lack of warrant/exigency | State: hospital draw by medical personnel was minimally intrusive and thus reasonable | Dissent: procedural safeguards (hospital, trained technician) weigh in favor of reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (rejected per se exigency rule based solely on alcohol dissipation; endorses totality-of-circumstances exigency analysis)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (upheld warrantless blood draw under exigent circumstances and recognized blood tests as reasonable when properly performed)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolee status diminishes expectation of privacy; suspicionless searches permissible under parole conditions)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probationary status can justify warrantless searches when grounded in reasonable suspicion and diminished privacy)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (regulatory drug/alcohol testing of safety-sensitive employees may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
- Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985) (intrusive bodily searches implicate deep privacy interests; reasonableness requires balancing and careful procedural safeguards)