State v. Fikes
Decision Date | 06 September 2019 |
Docket Number | NO. 03-19-00338-CR,03-19-00338-CR |
Citation | 585 S.W.3d 636 |
Parties | The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Thomas FIKES, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
William B. Mange, Austin, for Appellee.
Giselle Horton, Austin, Stacey M. Soule, David A. Escamilla, Austin, for Appellant.
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Appellee Thomas Fikes was charged by information with driving while intoxicated. He filed a motion to suppress the results of a blood-alcohol analysis. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, and the State now appeals. We will reverse the trial court's order suppressing the evidence and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
Rebecca Morton was the phlebotomist who drew Fikes's blood.1 Before the blood draw, Morton had arranged various items on the top of the "sharps container," also called the "biohazard bin." After Fikes entered the room, Morton removed a pair of gloves from the top of the sharps container and put them on. While wearing the gloves, she ran her hands through her hair and put on a sweater. Fikes sat in a chair that was near both the sharps container and a small trash can. Morton applied a tourniquet
to Fikes's arm that she had removed from the top of the sharps container. She then removed two unopened packages of disinfectant wipes from the top of the sharps container, opened one package, and wiped Fikes's arm. She threw the package and used wipe into the trash can, opened the other package, wiped Fikes's arm again, and threw the second package and wipe into the trash. Morton then removed a piece of gauze that was not in a package from the top of the sharps container and placed it on the armrest of Fikes's chair. She also removed a syringe in a package from the top of the sharps container, opened the package, and filled two vials with Fikes's blood.
After drawing the blood, Morton removed the tourniquet
, threw the used syringe into the opening on the top of the sharps container, and placed the gauze on Fikes's arm, placing the side of the gauze that had been facing up when it was sitting on the sharps container on his arm. Morton labeled the vials and then removed an adhesive bandage from the top of the sharps container. The bandage's wrapper was partially opened, and the exposed part of the bandage had been sticking to the container. She applied the bandage to Fikes's arm. Morton then threw the bandage wrapper and her gloves into the trash can.
At the suppression hearing, Morton testified to the following:
Morton was the State's only witness. Fikes then called Joseph Urena, who testified to the following:
can live in dry blood up to three weeks on a surface like the sharps container.
• HIV can live for up to three hours.
• If a person touches her hair with gloves on, the gloves are no longer considered clean, and it is standard procedure for the person to change gloves before drawing blood.
• There can be "transference" from the top of the biohazard container to gauze.
• In "a hospital setting or pretty much any medical setting," the biohazard container should not be sitting on the floor and should instead be attached to the wall.
• It is possible for blood to splash back up from the needle to the top of the biohazard container. These blood droplets can be microscopic, but even a microscopic portion of blood can be "enough to get somebody sick."
The trial court recessed the proceedings, and the hearing resumed at a later date. After hearing argument from counsel, the trial court stated the following:
I have no problem with the sealed sterile gauze used to wipe his arm or the needle or anything like that, but that bare four-by-four gauze on top of the sharps container and that open Band-Aid adhered to it, you know, that are applied directly to the puncture site, to me that's just way beyond the pale so I do grant the Motion to Suppress.
The trial court signed an order granting Fikes's motion to suppress and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court made the following findings and conclusions, among others:
• "Hanging from the top front edge of the sharps container Morton adhered a somewhat opened ‘band aid’ to be used, and used, to cover Fikes's puncture wound after the draw."
• "The open gauze and ‘band aid’ as placed and used posed an extreme potential risk of contamination and infection to Fikes."
• "Although the general environment of the blood draw room may have been clean and sanitary, the exposure of the 4 by 4 gauze and the ‘band aid’ on the biohazard sharps container exposed Fikes to an unjustifiable risk of infection [and] was therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as an unreasonable search."
This appeal followed.
The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness." State v. Villarreal , 475 S.W.3d 784, 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Riley v. California , 573 U.S. 373, 381, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) ). "The drawing of a person's blood is a search under the Fourth Amendment." Roop v. State , 484 S.W.3d 594, 598 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016, pet. ref'd) ; see Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757, 769, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) ( ). Indeed, as the Supreme Court has recognized, "[s]uch an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual's ‘most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.’ "
Missouri v. McNeely , 569 U.S. 141, 148, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (quoting Winston v. Lee , 470 U.S. 753, 760, 105 S.Ct. 1611, 84 L.Ed.2d 662 (1985) ).
"A blood draw is reasonable under governing Fourth Amendment requirements if the police had a justification for requiring the blood sample to be taken and if reasonable means and procedures were used in obtaining the blood sample." State v. Gray , No. 03-17-00174-CR, 2017 WL 2729672, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin June 22, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing State v. Johnston , 336 S.W.3d 649, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ). "When assessing whether the second requirement is met, reviewing courts must consider whether the test chosen by the police was reasonable and whether the test was performed in a reasonable manner." Id. (citing Schmerber , 384 U.S. at 771, 86 S.Ct. 1826 ). "If a defendant seeks to suppress evidence on the basis of the Fourth Amendment, the burden of proof is on the defendant to overcome the presumption of proper police conduct." Martinez v. State , 220 S.W.3d 183, 186 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.) ; see State v. Martinez , 569 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019).
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Cortez , 543...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kinnett v. State
...Duran , 396 S.W.3d 563, 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting Carmouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323, 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ); State v. Fikes , 585 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, no pet.). If the trial court makes express findings of fact, we view the evidence in the light most favo......
-
Jones v. State
...v. Duran, 396 S.W.3d 563, 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)); State v. Fikes, 585 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, no pet.). If the trial court makes express findings of fact, we view the evidence in the light most favor......
-
West v. State
... ... to draw his blood. To be considered reasonable, the blood ... must be drawn in accordance with "accepted medical ... practices." Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S ... 757, 771 (1966); see also State v. Fikes, 585 S.W.3d ... 636 (Tex. App.-Austin 2019, no pet.). West claims the draw ... was not reasonable in that the phlebotomist failed to ... sterilize his arm before inserting the needle. However, the ... record reflects that West declined sterilization of his arm ... ...
-
Gleason v. State
...396 S.W.3d 563, 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)); State v. Fikes, 585 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex. App.--Austin 2019, no pet.). [8]Valtierra, 310 S.W.3d at 447. [9]Ramirez-Tamayo, 537 S.W.3d at 35-36 (quoting Harrison v. State, 205 ......
-
The Blood Alcohol Test Case
...the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to suppress. Holding: Trial court judgment affirmed. State v. Fikes , 585 S.W.3d 636 (Tex.App.-Austin, 2019) Facts: Rebecca Morton was the phlebotomist who drew Fikes’s blood. Before the blood draw, Morton had arranged vario......