Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of December 11, 2017.
NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.
Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.
State v. Sanders, Nos. 02-16-00226-CR, 02-16-00227-CR, 02-16-00228-CR (December 14, 2017) (Meier, J., joined by Walker, J.; Kerry FitzGerald (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment) dissents with opinion).
Held: Under the totality of the circumstances, the State failed to carry its burden that exigent circumstances existed at the time the arresting officer ordered Appellant’s blood be drawn at the hospital; therefore, the trial court did not err by suppressing the results of the blood draw. Upon arriving at the scene of a fatal accident caused by Appellant having crossed over the center stripe of the highway, two officers observed collectively and immediately that Appellant possessed slurred speech, red and bloodshot eyes, imbalance in her walking, and an odor of alcohol. Appellant also admitted to having imbibed alcoholic drinks earlier in the day. Furthermore, transporting Appellant to the hospital did not involve a significant amount of time and the record is devoid of any evidence reflecting what procedures existed for obtaining a warrant or whether the arresting officer could have reasonably and timely obtained one. The record indicates that the arresting officer had warrant affidavits on his person and that there was a magistrate five minutes from him at the time he arrived at the hospital with Appellant. The record further indicates that the arresting officer declined the assistance of another available officer.
Dissent: The officer assigned to determine probable cause and, if necessary, to procure a warrant was not able to complete his investigation at the scene because Appellant’s boyfriend interfered and because medics later determined that Appellant was injured and needed to go to the hospital. At the hospital, the officer was able to complete his investigation but was not able to procure a warrant before hospital personnel began their medical treatment. To preclude the medical treatment itself from contaminating a blood draw’s results, the officer ordered the blood draw without a warrant. The evidence showed exigent circumstances. The majority is second guessing when the officer should have made his probable-cause determination instead of focusing on when he actually made his probable-cause determination. The majority intrudes on law enforcement’s investigative function by substituting its judgment for the that of the officer. The officer was under no obligation to find probable cause before completing his investigation.