Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ryan David Miller drove his truck off a rural road, struck a curve-warning sign, entered a drainage ditch, and came to rest against a tree. Miller, the truck’s sole occupant, was seriously injured and incapacitated. Responding officers smelled alcohol on him and observed open and unopened beer bottles in the truck. Emergency medical personnel transported him to a hospital for treatment.
Suspecting DWI, a DPS trooper requested a grand jury subpoena through the Milam County District Attorney’s Office for Miller’s hospital records. The records showed a blood-alcohol concentration that the trooper converted to a legal BAC of 0.149. After being charged with misdemeanor DWI, Miller moved to suppress the BAC evidence, arguing that the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion and that the State violated statutes governing grand jury subpoenas. The trial court denied the motion, and Miller pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Court of Appeals held that the facts supported reasonable suspicion of DWI. Miller’s truck had left the roadway and struck a tree, he was identified as the driver, officers smelled alcohol on him, and beer bottles were present in the passenger compartment. Although reasonable suspicion was not itself required for a lawful grand jury subpoena, these circumstances defeated Miller’s contention that the subpoena was a sham or fishing expedition.
The court also rejected Miller’s statutory challenges. The subpoena showed that the county and district attorney issued it, and the record contained a return stating the time and manner of service. Miller’s argument that the timing and distance made the return implausible did not overcome the presumption of regularity afforded grand jury proceedings. His separate claim that the State failed to submit the written application required for an out-of-county witness was not preserved because he did not raise it in his motion or obtain a ruling on it at the suppression hearing. With no preserved, specific statutory violation established, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.23 did not require suppression.
Key Takeaways
- A serious single-vehicle crash, the driver’s odor of alcohol, and beer bottles in the vehicle supplied reasonable suspicion of DWI.
- Reasonable suspicion was not required to make the grand jury subpoena lawful, but its existence undermined the claim that the subpoena was a sham.
- The subpoena and return satisfied the challenged issuance-and-service requirements, and speculation about service timing did not overcome the presumption of regularity.
- A distinct statutory objection to an out-of-county subpoena was forfeited because it was not presented to and ruled on by the trial court.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Texas prosecutors may use a grand jury subpoena to obtain hospital-generated blood-alcohol records during a legitimate DWI investigation, including an investigation of a misdemeanor. It also illustrates the evidentiary burden required to overcome the presumption that grand jury proceedings were conducted regularly.
For suppression litigation, the opinion underscores that each alleged statutory defect must be specifically raised in the trial court. An appellate court will not reach a new subpoena-procedure objection merely because other challenges to the same subpoena were preserved.