# Douds, Kenneth Lee

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 14, 2015 · 472 S.W.3d 670

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9818084

## Case

- **Full name:** Kenneth Lee DOUDS, Appellant v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 14, 2015
- **Citations:** 472 S.W.3d 670; 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1060; 2015 WL 5981121
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Meyers
- **Judges:** Alcala, Keller, Johnson, Richardson, Yeary, Keasler, Hervey, Newell, Meyers
- **Cited by:** 122 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9818084

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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 whethe…
- 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
- holding that constitutional error was not preserved even if it was presented in the motion to suppress because the context of the record showed only a statutory complaint at the suppression hearing

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9818084. Public record. Not legal advice.