Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Gilberto Alvarez, Jr. v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-01-00532-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 27, 2002; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Gilberto Alvarez, Jr. was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated after entering a nolo contendere plea, following a plea bargain that resulted in a 90-day jail sentence, probated for one year, and an $800 fine. Alvarez appealed, claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress blood test evidence obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting that no evidence was presented at the suppression hearing to substantiate the claim of unlawful search and seizure. The court highlighted the absence of identifiable fruits of the alleged search, indicating that without clear evidence, it could not assess the merits of the suppression claim. Counsel's requests for judicial notice of documents related to the blood test were acknowledged, but such documents were not formally admitted into evidence. The court clarified that necessary facts for a suppression motion cannot be judicially noticed and must be supported by evidence in the record. Even if assumed facts regarding the circumstances of blood sample collection were considered, the appeal lacked merit, as the first sample was drawn without Alvarez's consent at a police officer's request after an accident. A blood sample from the appellant was analyzed by the Texas Department of Safety Crime Laboratory, but the trial court suppressed the results. A second blood sample, drawn at the hospital for routine medical purposes with the appellant's consent, showed an alcohol content of approximately 0.26, exceeding the legal limit of 0.08. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion to suppress this medical test result. The appellant argued that the test result should also be suppressed because it was obtained without consent or a valid search warrant. The appellant's counsel referenced State v. Hardy, which indicated that societal interests in safeguarding medical records do not extend to protecting blood-alcohol test results taken for medical purposes post-accident. However, the appellant contended that the Supreme Court's ruling in Ferguson v. City of Charleston contradicted previous Texas case law regarding privacy expectations in medical records. Ferguson involved a state hospital's policy to test pregnant patients for drug use without consent, which the Supreme Court deemed an unreasonable search without a warrant. The court noted that the facts in Ferguson were distinct from the current case, and even if the appellant's claims were valid, Hardy would still apply. Consequently, the appellant's point of error was overruled, and the judgment was affirmed.