Porter v. State
1998 WL 164549, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 2100, 969 S.W.2d 60 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless arrest for an offense committed in an officer's presence (e.g., public intoxication) is lawful and can serve as the predicate for a mandatory, statutory blood draw related to a different offense (e.g., driving while intoxicated) that arose from the same criminal episode but was not committed in the officer's presence.
Facts:
- On the night before a fatal car crash, Gregory Brian Porter left a message on an answering machine stating he knew he should not be driving and was 'very much fatigued.'
- In the early morning of March 10, 1995, Porter drove his vehicle across the highway center stripe, causing a head-on collision.
- The driver of the other vehicle, Michael Gourley, was killed in the collision.
- While Porter was being transported by ambulance, a medical technician found a spoon and syringe in his sock.
- At the hospital, Porter engaged in rambling and paranoid conversation, his speech was slurred, and he demanded to speak to a long-deceased governor.
- Subsequent blood and urine tests revealed the presence of methamphetamines, diazepam, nordiazepam, amphetamine, and cocaine in Porter's system.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Texas charged Gregory Brian Porter in a two-count indictment for intoxication manslaughter and manslaughter.
- Following a trial in a state trial court, a jury acquitted Porter of intoxication manslaughter but convicted him of manslaughter.
- The jury sentenced Porter to twenty years' imprisonment.
- Porter filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Porter (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, arguing legal insufficiency of the evidence and erroneous admission of evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless arrest for public intoxication, an offense observed by an officer at a hospital, provide a lawful basis to conduct a mandatory blood draw under a statute related to driving while intoxicated, an offense the officer did not observe, when the arrestee was recently involved in a fatal car accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Smith
Yes. A warrantless arrest for an offense committed in an officer's presence, such as public intoxication, is lawful and can serve as the predicate for a mandatory blood draw required by statute for a different offense, like DWI, which arose from the same circumstances but was not committed in the officer's presence. The court's reasoning relied on the 'collective knowledge' doctrine, where information known to all investigating officers is considered in determining probable cause. Although Sergeant Owen did not witness Porter driving, Trooper Surovec, who was at the scene, knew Porter was the driver in a fatal accident. Sergeant Owen personally observed Porter's impaired behavior at the hospital, which provided sufficient probable cause to arrest him for public intoxication, an offense committed in the sergeant's presence. Because this arrest was lawful and arose from acts related to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated that resulted in a death, the mandatory blood draw was statutorily authorized and the results were admissible.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the collective knowledge doctrine to justify warrantless arrests and subsequent statutory searches in DWI investigations. It provides a practical framework for law enforcement, allowing an officer who did not witness the driving to make a valid arrest based on a different, observable offense (like public intoxication) to secure critical evidence under mandatory draw statutes. The ruling reinforces that a valid arrest for any offense can trigger legal procedures tied to a more serious, related offense, thereby preventing defendants from suppressing evidence on the grounds that the arresting officer did not personally observe the primary crime.
