Texas Finds Per Se DWI Search Statute Unconstitutional

Posted on August 15, 2014 by Jud Nichols

If we told you Texans were smarter than Minnesotans, you would laugh all the way to the Alamo.

That is, perhaps, unless you happened to stumble upon the recent Texas Supreme Court Decision of Aviles v. The State of Texas. In the wake of last year’s Missouri v. McNeely decision, the various States have all been given their own opportunity to interpret exactly how to protect the constitutional rights of drivers suspected of being impaired–and Texas decided to respect the rights of those drivers, rather than to water them down.

In Aviles v. The State of Texas, the Texas Supreme Court held the state’s warrantless search of Aviles’s blood to be without an exception, and therefore, unconstitutional. The procedural background of the case parallels Brooks in that Aviles was remanded from the U.S. Supreme Court be decided in light of McNeely.

The facts of Aviles are pretty straightforward: after Aviles was arrested for DWI, the officer brought up his laptop and discovered Aviles had two prior DWI’s. Bingo! The officer no longer needed a warrant because of a Texas statute permitting a police officer “to take a blood specimen from DWI suspect without a warrant if the officer has credible information that the suspect has been previously convicted on at least two prior occasions of DWI.”

Before forcing a blood draw, however, the officer asked Aviles if he would voluntarily submit to a breath or blood test. Interesting question because two aspects of it further distinguishes Texas from Minnesota: (1) there was no urine test offered because they do not withstand scientific scrutiny to be allowed in court; and (2) the officer, attempting to elicit valid consent, used the word “voluntary” because it must be free and voluntary to be legal consent—a question never asked in Minnesota DWI cases.

But, Aviles declined the warrantless search (yet another distinguishing aspect: he wasn't automatically charged with a crime). Herein lies the crucial moment: there is a failed attempt to elicit consent for a warrantless search that does not seem to have an exception. Does the officer have to get a warrant?

The officer took a test against Aviles’s will, relying on the Texas Statute for the “two prior convictions” exception. But does McNeely leave room for such a per se exception? The Texas Supreme Court said “no.” The court instead held that the state must take into account the totality of the circumstances present in each case, specifically noting that “it was incumbent upon the State to prove the warrantless blood draw was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.”

Texas’s conclusion is the polar opposite of the one reached by our own Court of Appeals in Bernard (a case which is currently being reviewed by our own Minnesota Supreme Court). Let’s hope that Minnesota follows the lead of Texas, and everyone can start chanting “Don’t Mess With the Constitution.”

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/316525

Continue Reading...

Court Finds Cop “Immune” for DUI Arrest Without Evidence

The following facts are fairly typical of what happens in a disturbing number of DUI cases:  

Ohio: Federal Court Overturns Bogus DUI Arrest

Chillicothe, OH.  June 19 — A sober woman is fighting back after she was falsely arrested and imprisoned for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled last Wednesday that Catrena Green could proceed in her lawsuit against Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Adam B. Throckmorton after lab tests proved she had a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of 0.0 and no drugs in her system.

The three-judge panel overturned the decision of a US district court granting Throckmorton immunity for his actions in Chillicothe, Ohio in August 2008. He had seen Green’s SUV driving in the opposite direction with her high beams activated. Throckmorton made a U-Turn and pulled her over in stop recorded by a dashboard camera. Green explained she had her high beams on because it was difficult to see in the wet conditions and she was trying to be careful. She asked whether she had done anything else wrong.

"No, not really," Throckmorton said during the stop. "You just brighted me and blinded me."

Throckmorton then claimed that Green’s pupils were "constricted" and that she had difficulty getting out of her seatbelt. Though Green did not smell of alcohol or drugs, Throckmorton decided to perform field sobriety tests on her. He noted that she was unable to follow the swift motion of his pen in a horizontal-gaze nystagmus test that he spent twenty seconds administering. He noted that "she talked slowly" while repeating the letters of the alphabet beginning with "L" and ending in "S." She struggled to stand on one leg in the balance test. Green, who was 42 and overweight at the time, swayed slightly while performing the walk-and-turn test.

On the basis of those tests, Throckmorton arrested Green for DUI. She spent two days in jail while trying to meet bail with only a credit card. Green argues she was detained and tested without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. She insisted that the lab tests proved the trooper was lying.

"We find her argument persuasive," Judge Ronald Lee Gilman wrote for the court. "What matters here, rather, is what mattered in Miller: that a subsequent test for drugs and alcohol showed that the driver was in fact sober. That evidence alone is sufficient to cast doubt on the truthfulness of Throckmorton’s testimony regarding Green’s pupils."

The court decided that a jury should decide whether there were specific and articulable facts, not just a hunch, justifying Green’s detention for the sobriety tests.

"We understand, of course, the difficulty inherent in making on-the-fly determinations regarding possible driving impairments, just as we recognize the severity of drunk driving and the potential consequences of an incorrect call had Green ultimately proven to be impaired," Judge Gilman wrote. "But this difficulty and these consequences always exist when an officer stops someone for a traffic violation. Yet officers do not have free rein to administer field sobriety tests to whomever they please and then to arrest that person for making the slightest misstep while performing the tests. Whether that is what happened in this case is a question for the jury."

So….no erratic driving….no slurred speech….no alcohol on the breath….no swaying or poor balance….no bloodshot eyes…no difficulty understanding directions.  But she used her bright lights, had trouble standing on one leg (42, overweight and nervous) and "failed" a nystagmus test which was clearly incorrectly given. Oh….and she had no alcohol or drugs in her body.

The only question here is:  Why did the lower court give this idiot a free pass?  Since when do cops have "immunity"?  
 

This entry was posted on Friday, June 29th, 2012 at 9:39 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Continue Reading...