Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-27-2020
Case Style:
The State of Texas v. Kevin Henriquez-Cisneros
Case Number: 05-19-01419-CR
Judge: Erin A. Nowell
Court: Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joshua Vanderslice
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Dallas, TX - Criminal Lawyer Driving While Intoxicated
The State appeals the trial court’s order granting appellee Kevin HenriquezCisneros’s motion to suppress. After he was arrested for driving while intoxicated,
the State obtained a search warrant to seize appellee’s blood. After the blood was
drawn, it was submitted for testing to determine appellee’s blood-alcohol content.
Appellee subsequently moved to suppress the blood-alcohol test result. The trial
court granted the motion to suppress and issued findings of fact and conclusions of
law. On appeal, the State argues the trial court erred by granting the motion to
–2–
suppress. We reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress and
remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
After appellee was arrested, a magistrate executed a search warrant instructing
the officer to take custody of appellee. Further, the search warrant states: “You shall
search for, seize and maintain as evidence the property described in said Affidavit,
to-wit: human blood from the body of” appellee. The warrant does not explicitly
state the blood may be analyzed after it was drawn.
Following a hearing on appellee’s motion, the trial court concluded that two
separate searches occurred—one when the blood was seized and a second when it
was analyzed. The trial court further concluded that because the search warrant only
authorized seizure of appellee’s blood, the State’s testing of the blood was beyond
the scope of the search warrant. The trial court granted the motion to suppress on
this basis. On appeal, the State argues that because appellee’s blood was legally
seized under a valid evidentiary search warrant, he had no reasonable expectation of
privacy against testing it for alcohol, and the trial court erred by granting the motion
to suppress.
Since the trial court issued its order and this appeal was filed, the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion in Crider v. State, No. PD-1070-19, 2020 WL
5540130 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 16, 2020). Considering similar facts to those before
us now, the court stated: “Here, the State obtained the blood sample by way of a
magistrate’s determination that probable cause existed to justify its seizure—for the
–3–
explicit purpose of determining its evidentiary value to prove the offense of driving
while intoxicated. That magistrate’s determination was sufficient in this case to
justify the chemical testing of the blood. And this is so, we hold, even if the warrant
itself did not expressly authorize the chemical testing on its face.” Crider, 2020 WL
5540130, at *3. Based on Crider, in the case before us, the magistrate’s
determination that probable cause existed to justify the seizure of the blood sample
from appellee was sufficient to justify the chemical testing of the blood seized. See
id. We conclude the trial court erred by granting appellee’s motion to suppress. See
id.; see also State v. Staton, 599 S.W.3d 614, 618 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet.
filed).
Outcome: We reverse the trial court’s order and remand the cause to the trial court for
further proceedings.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: