holding that appellant failed to preserve error with respect to factual grounds for suppression where appellant made only isolated references to those grounds in suppression proceedings in trial court; appellant’s motion, arguments, and evidence were otherwise narrowly focused on other factual grounds; and trial court thus was not placed on notice of complaint
How later courts described this case
- holding that appellant failed to preserve error with respect to factual grounds for suppression where appellant made only isolated references to those grounds in suppression proceedings in trial court; appellant’s motion, arguments, and evidence were otherwise narrowly focused on other factual grounds; and trial court thus was not placed on notice of complaint
- concluding, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a), that appellant failed to preserve complaints because “isolated statements globally asserting that a blood draw was conducted without a warrant” were not “enough to apprise the trial court that it must consider whether there were exigent circumstances to permit the warrantless search”
- finding that appellant did not preserve his constitutional Fourth Amendment arguments because in the trial court appellant limited his motion to suppress and argument in support of his motion to statutory violation allegations and did not raise constitutional violations
- holding that trial court was not placed on notice for potential complaint about constitutionality when argument at trial was limited to statutory requirements, thus appellant failed to preserve error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Meyers, J.,
dissenting
While the majority hojds that Appellant failed to preserve his Fourth Amendment complaint, I disagree. I believe that the court of appeals properly set out the law and that, once the defendant established that the search was conducted without a warrant, the burden became the State’s to show that the searcli was reasonable without a warrant. State v. Robinson, 334 S.W.3d 776, 778-79 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). It is the State’s burden to "show why the warrantless blood draw was reasonable; not the defendant’s to prove that the war-rantless action was unreasonable. Appellant had no burd,en to show lack of exigent circumstances, and he did not abandon his Fourth Amendment claim simply because the suppression hearing focused on Section 724.012 of the Texas Transportation Code.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and, therefore, I respectfully dissent.