AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was involved in a head-on collision near the Texas border, resulting in serious injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle. At the scene, State Police Officers observed signs indicating the Defendant was under the influence of marijuana. After being arrested and consenting to a blood draw, the Defendant was transported to a trauma center. An Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) in the ambulance, at the request of Officer Robles, drew the Defendant's blood using an ambulance-supplied sterile IV catheter and syringe, transferring the blood to tubes from a Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD) approved kit. The analysis of the blood sample revealed the presence of THC metabolites but no alcohol (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that an EMT is authorized under the Implied Consent Act to draw blood for determining its alcohol or drug content and that the blood draw was properly performed (paras 8, 11).
• Defendant: Contended that the EMT was not qualified to perform blood draws under the relevant statute and that the blood draw was improperly performed, thus the results should be suppressed (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) is authorized under the Implied Consent Act to draw blood for the purpose of determining its alcohol or drug content.
• Whether the blood draw was properly performed according to statutory requirements.

Disposition

• The district court's order suppressing the results of the Defendant's blood test was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and M. Monica Zamora concurring, held that the Implied Consent Act does not authorize EMTs to draw blood for determining alcohol or drug content. The Act specifies that only certain professionals, such as physicians, licensed nurses, laboratory technicians, or technologists employed by a hospital or physician, are permitted to perform such blood draws. The Court rejected the State's argument that an EMT qualifies as a "licensed professional" under the Act, noting that the statute explicitly lists the categories of individuals authorized to perform blood draws. Furthermore, the Court determined that the statutory and regulatory provisions allow EMTs to perform blood drawing only in the context of providing emergency medical services, not for determining the content of alcohol or drugs in blood under the Implied Consent Act. Consequently, the Court concluded that the blood draw did not meet the foundational requirements for admissibility under the Act, affirming the suppression of the test results (paras 9-24).