X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:When dispatched to the scene of a single vehicle accident, Trooper Jonathon Anderson found Charles David Washburn sitting on the tailgate of a truck. Washburn was injured, and his face was covered in blood. Washburn admitted drinking, and Anderson could detect the odor of alcohol on or about Washburn’s person. At the hospital, Anderson requested a specimen of blood, provided the warnings required by statute to be given to an arrested person and apprised Washburn of the consequences for refusing to provide a requested specimen of blood. Washburn consented to providing a specimen of blood. Authorities charged Washburn with driving while intoxicated. After the trial court denied Washburn’s motion to suppress the blood specimen, Washburn pleaded nolo contendere, and the trial court found Washburn guilty. The trial court assessed punishment at 180 days in the county jail, probated for 15 months. Washburn appealed, claiming the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. HOLDING:Affirmed. In his sole point of error, Washburn argued the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress, because authorities allegedly obtained the blood specimen illegally as a result of unlawful coercion and duress. According to Washburn, Anderson incorrectly informed Washburn his driver’s license would be suspended if he refused to provide a blood specimen. Washburn contended that, because he was not under arrest, his driver’s license could not be suspended. At the hearing, Washburn testified he would have refused the request if he had not been incorrectly informed by the police officer. The taking of a blood specimen, the court stated, is considered a search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The defendant alleging a Fourth Amendment violation, the court stated, bears the burden of producing some evidence that rebuts the presumption of proper police conduct. A defendant meets his initial burden of proof by establishing that a search or seizure occurred without a warrant. Texas Transportation Code �724.011 only requires an officer to give the statutory warnings when the person has been arrested. Because the warnings are only required when a suspect is under arrest, Washburn claimed that Anderson incorrectly informed him that his driver’s license would be suspended if he refused to provide the specimen. The court, however, found that Washburn was in fact under arrest at the time the specimen was taken. An individual is arrested when he or she has been actually placed under restraint or taken into custody, the court stated. Under the circumstances of this case, the court stated, the manifestation of probable cause by the defendant, combined with other circumstances, would lead a reasonable person to believe that he or she was under restraint to the degree associated with an arrest. The record, the court stated, contained sufficient evidence that Washburn’s consent was voluntary. OPINION:Carter, J.; Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.