Weems, Daniel James
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 85
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Around 11:30 p.m. Weems crashed his car after leaving a bar, admitted he was drunk, fled the scene, and hid under a car; deputies located and detained him about 40 minutes later.
- Deputies observed signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, unsteady) and arrested Weems for DWI; he refused breath and blood after warnings.
- Because of complaints of neck/back pain Weems was taken to a busy hospital for treatment; Deputy Bustamante requested a blood draw at the hospital and the sample was taken about 2:30 a.m., roughly two hours after arrest.
- Blood testing later showed BAC of .18; Weems moved to suppress the warrantless blood draw at trial under the Fourth Amendment; the trial court admitted the results without written findings.
- The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, holding the State failed to prove exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw in light of Missouri v. McNeely and Texas law.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals: a warrantless nonconsensual blood draw is per se unreasonable unless it fits a recognized Fourth Amendment exception, and the State did not meet its burden to show exigency here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recognized warrant-requirement exceptions are exclusive | Weems: warrantless searches are unreasonable unless an established exception applies | State: reasonableness can be judged by other balancing considerations and statutory scheme | Held: Exceptions are required; a warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless it fits a recognized exception |
| Whether § 724.012(b) or implied-consent eliminates warrant requirement | Weems: Texas statute and implied-consent do not excuse the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement | State: statute authorizes nonconsensual blood draws and can render them reasonable | Held: Statute/implied-consent do not displace the warrant requirement; Villarreal and McNeely control |
| Whether circumstances here created a per se exigency because alcohol dissipates | Weems: dissipation alone does not create per se exigency | State: natural alcohol dissipation justifies warrantless blood draws in DUI cases | Held: McNeely rejects a per se dissipation rule; must analyze totality of circumstances |
| Whether exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless blood draw in this case | Weems: no exigency—transport was short, magistrate availability unclear, officers could have sought warrant | State: Weems’s flight and delay and the risk of evidence loss justified the warrantless draw | Held: No exigency on this record; State failed to show obtaining a warrant would have been impracticable without undermining the search’s efficacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (holding alcohol dissipation does not create a per se exigency; exigency requires totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (upholding a warrantless blood draw under exigent circumstances where delay to obtain a warrant would have risked evidence loss)
- State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (concluding Texas statutes requiring blood draws do not eliminate Fourth Amendment warrant protections)