Driving While Intoxicated Case Law Update - Texas District ...

2. WHEN DEFENDANT IS NOT UNDER ARREST
Skinner v. State. 2006 WL 1420388 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2006, no pet.) (Not designated for
publication).
Blumenstetterv. State, 135 S.W.3d234 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.).
Ramos v. State, 124 S.W.3d 326 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd).
Knisley v. State, 81 S.W.3d 478 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd.).
Nottinqham V. State, 908 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no pet.).
Burhalter v. State,642 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982).
Aliff v. State,627 S.W.2d 166 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982).
Where suspecf was not under arrest, officer requesting blood sample be drawn from semico
n sc i o u {unconsclous d efe n d a nt j u stif i e d by e xi g e nt c i rc u m sta n ce s.
3. CONSENT NOT INVOLUNTARY OR COERCED
Combest v. State,953 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997). On remand 981 S.W.2d 958
(Tex.App.-Austin 1 998). Same holdino.
Reading DIC-24 when defendantis nof under arrest will not per-se make subseguent consent to
give blood sample involuntary.
Strickland v. State, 2007 W L 2592440 (Tex.App.-Texarka na 2007 ).
Ihls case involved an investigation of an alcohol-related crash that would ultimately be charged
as lntoxication Assault. Ihe issue challenged wasthe validity of the defendanf's consenf to a blood
sample that he purportedly gave to the officer while at the hospital. The officer had told the
defendant at the time he asked for his consent that if he refused his consent, he would obtain the
blood sample as a mandatory blood specimen. The defendant was not under arrest at the time this
statementwasmade. lnupholdingtheconsent,theCourtdistinguishesthiscasefromfhosewhere
an officer has created and communicated a fiction in order to coerce the consent for a search.
Rather it points out that the officer was instead warning the defendant about the reality of the
situation. The defendant was subject to immediate arrest based on the information which was in
the officer's possessrbn at the time that representation was made and was, in fact, arrested
immediately thereafter and without reference to the eventualresulfs of the blood test.
4. READING DIC.}4AS EVIDENCE OF ARREST
Washburn v. State, 235 S.W.3d 346 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007).
Bellv. State,881 S.W.2d794 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd).
Nottinoham v. State, 908 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no pet.).
Where potice officer read the DtC-24fo a suspec t priorto asking for a mandatory blood specimen.
The reading of that form constitufes some evidence that the suspecf was under arrest.
92