Garcia v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Garcia

    No. 08-15-00264-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 24, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    It is also apparent that several other officers remained at the scene and arrived later at the hospital to assist with the investigation. The State further relies on Garcia v. State, No. 14-14-00387-CR, 2015 WL 2250895, at *1 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] May 12, 2015, pet. ref'd)(not designated for publication), which held exigent circumstances justified a police officer's warrantless blood draw. However, Garcia is distinguishable for several reasons.

  2. Garza v. State

    NO. 14-15-00902-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 8, 2016)

    Gutierrez testified about the procedure for obtaining a warrant in Harris County and said the procedure takes at least one and a half to two hours. See Garcia v. State, No. 14-14-00387-CR, 2015 WL 2250895, *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 12, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) (distinguishing Douds because Garcia record contained evidence of procedure and time needed to obtain warrant). Unlike Anderson, the record in this case indicates the officer believed he could not obtain a warrant in time to prevent imminent destruction of evidence.

  3. Balkissoon v. State

    NO. 03-13-00382-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2016)   Cited 2 times
    Ruling that evidence was legally insufficient to show that driver placed others in danger when evidence established that only vehicles in area were driver's car and police officer's car, that officer did not have to take evasive action to avoid defendant, that officer was not in "'actual danger' of colliding with" defendant's vehicle at any time, and that defendant "was not speeding, weaving, swerving, or drifting on the road"

    On this record, the district court would not have erred in concluding that exigent circumstances were present here that justified Reisen's decision to proceed without a warrant and in denying the motion to suppress on that ground.See McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1568; Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770-71; see also Garcia v. State, No. 14-14-00387-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4756, at *20-21 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 12, 2015, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that exigent circumstances were present when officer testified "that he was familiar with the procedure for obtaining a warrant and that it was a complicated and lengthy process" that would have required him to "type up a warrant, locate a judge to sign it, and return to the hospital" where suspect's blood could be drawn); Pearson v. State, No. 13-11-00137-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2514, at *10-11 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 6, 2014, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that there were exigent circumstances present when officer testified that he was "the only officer on duty," was "solely responsible for securing the scene of the accident," and had to wait "at least three hours to obtain a warrant from a judge"). In its brief, the State does not address the district court's stated reason for denying the motion to suppress—that the exclusionary rule should not apply in this case because Trooper Rei