Anyone else encountered defense objections to search warrants for blood draws in DWI cases mentioned in the Jan/Feb 07 Voice of the defense article? Specifically, the failure of officers to present the warrants to the suspects. While I believe the better practice is to present the warrant, I see a HUGE difference between execution of a search warrrant on a residence and one for a blood draw at the time the offense is detected. Thoughts?

JAS

How would the failure to present the search warrant lead to suppression? Of course, the better practice is to present the search warrant (to the drunk person). But, even article 38.23's exclusionary rule requires some rational connection between a violation of law and the collection of evidence before suppression of evidence occurs. The collection was going to occur with or without presentation of the warrant to the drunk person.

This is a lot like the claims made for years about failure to warn a defendant about his right to contact the consulate if he was not a US citizen. Ultimately, the courts found that there was no connection between a confession and the failure to provide the warning.

The current Court of Criminal Appeals has done a good job of recognizing that evidence should only be suppressed when a violation of law directly led to the collection of that evidence. The public appreciates such a common sense application of an exclusionary rule. Anything else breeds contempt for technical application of rules.

And make sure you document providing a copy as soon as the situation was brought to your attention.