Tweet
AUSTIN -- Police officers across the state will no longer be able to draw the blood of DWI suspects without a warrant the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled Wednesday.
The ruling strikes down a state statute that allows law enforcement officers to issue mandatory blood draws of suspected drunk drivers without their consent or a warrant under certain circumstances, such as a fatal accident or if the suspected drunk driver has previously been convicted on multiple DWIs. The justices ruled the statute violates the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Court: Drawing blood in DWI cases without warrant unconstitutional KVUE
"So the court said there are times when it's permissible, but like we do for any fourth amendment issue, we require a warrant unless there is a specific exception or reason not to do it,"explained Jim Harrington, attorney and Director of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
The ruling is based on a case that happened in Nueces County, on the coast. In 2012, police stopped David Villarreal for suspected drunk driving. Because he had two prior DWI convictions, the officers followed the statue and drew blood without his consent or a warrant.
In the decision by the court, Judge Elsa Alcala wrote, "In contrast to parolees and probationers, DWI suspects who have completed their sentences are not free on conditional liberty. Rather, DWI suspects who have discharged their sentences...enjoy absolute liberty from their prior convictions and have no ongoing supervisory relationship."
The ruling leaves room for blood draws in emergency situations. Harrington said one such example would be a deadly accident in a county where a magistrate is not available to sign a warrant immediately. But overall, the ruling knocks out the entire statute saying it violates a person's rights.
"It's one thing to do a breathalyzer, it's quite another to draw your blood because that will show of course all kinds of private information about any kind of medication or any kind of disease you might have. And it's very intrusive," said Harrington.
Some have questioned what role the ruling will play in "no refusal" initiatives where police officers issue blood warrants on all suspected drunk drivers. Harrington said police will have to change their procedure.
"What the practice has been in some jurisdictions is to sort of have this blanket warrant where a cop just calls up a magistrate and says 'I need a warrant,' that's not going to cut it because a requirement of the fourth amendment is there has to be a magistrate who looks at the evidence and makes a determination that there is probable cause," he explained.
A spokesman for CLEAT said it could create problems, telling KVUE News, "it's an example of the court believing that police powers were too broad and so this will make it a little more difficult for officers to accomplish their goal and they'll just have to work harder and go back and get warrants."
Harrington believes the ruling will not open the door to more DWI cases, just unnecessary searches.
"I can't see how in many instances this will apply to DWI cases because the evidence in a DWI case is going to be the erratic driving or accident caused by the driver and the video that will come out and the breathalyzer," said Harrington. " Here's the thing," he added, "if you refuse to take a breathalayzer, that can be used against you in court. So I mean they already have enough tools in their toolbox to do what they want to do without having to draw out somebody's blood."
Austin Police told KVUE News in most cases, officers obtain warrants for blood draws, but there are some "exigent circumstances" when officers will draw blood without a warrant. Those seven circumstances are outlined in the department's policy manual under section 355.6 (click here to read) and will now fall under the scrutiny of the court.
The ruling strikes down a state statute that allows law enforcement officers to issue mandatory blood draws of suspected drunk drivers without their consent or a warrant under certain circumstances, such as a fatal accident or if the suspected drunk driver has previously been convicted on multiple DWIs. The justices ruled the statute violates the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Court: Drawing blood in DWI cases without warrant unconstitutional KVUE
"So the court said there are times when it's permissible, but like we do for any fourth amendment issue, we require a warrant unless there is a specific exception or reason not to do it,"explained Jim Harrington, attorney and Director of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
The ruling is based on a case that happened in Nueces County, on the coast. In 2012, police stopped David Villarreal for suspected drunk driving. Because he had two prior DWI convictions, the officers followed the statue and drew blood without his consent or a warrant.
In the decision by the court, Judge Elsa Alcala wrote, "In contrast to parolees and probationers, DWI suspects who have completed their sentences are not free on conditional liberty. Rather, DWI suspects who have discharged their sentences...enjoy absolute liberty from their prior convictions and have no ongoing supervisory relationship."
The ruling leaves room for blood draws in emergency situations. Harrington said one such example would be a deadly accident in a county where a magistrate is not available to sign a warrant immediately. But overall, the ruling knocks out the entire statute saying it violates a person's rights.
"It's one thing to do a breathalyzer, it's quite another to draw your blood because that will show of course all kinds of private information about any kind of medication or any kind of disease you might have. And it's very intrusive," said Harrington.
Some have questioned what role the ruling will play in "no refusal" initiatives where police officers issue blood warrants on all suspected drunk drivers. Harrington said police will have to change their procedure.
"What the practice has been in some jurisdictions is to sort of have this blanket warrant where a cop just calls up a magistrate and says 'I need a warrant,' that's not going to cut it because a requirement of the fourth amendment is there has to be a magistrate who looks at the evidence and makes a determination that there is probable cause," he explained.
A spokesman for CLEAT said it could create problems, telling KVUE News, "it's an example of the court believing that police powers were too broad and so this will make it a little more difficult for officers to accomplish their goal and they'll just have to work harder and go back and get warrants."
Harrington believes the ruling will not open the door to more DWI cases, just unnecessary searches.
"I can't see how in many instances this will apply to DWI cases because the evidence in a DWI case is going to be the erratic driving or accident caused by the driver and the video that will come out and the breathalyzer," said Harrington. " Here's the thing," he added, "if you refuse to take a breathalayzer, that can be used against you in court. So I mean they already have enough tools in their toolbox to do what they want to do without having to draw out somebody's blood."
Austin Police told KVUE News in most cases, officers obtain warrants for blood draws, but there are some "exigent circumstances" when officers will draw blood without a warrant. Those seven circumstances are outlined in the department's policy manual under section 355.6 (click here to read) and will now fall under the scrutiny of the court.
Comment