Krause v. Texas (Original)
Annotate this Case
On January 26, 2011, appellant was involved in a vehicle accident and was arrested for driving while intoxicated. One of the other people involved in the accident was taken to the hospital. Because of this, without the police obtaining a warrant, appellant was taken to a hospital so that a mandatory, involuntary blood specimen could be taken. Appellant's blood was drawn by Rachel Lopez, an employee of the hospital and an Emergency Medical Technician-Intermediate ("EMT-I"). Appellant moved to suppress the results of the blood test, arguing that Lopez was not a person authorized by section 724.017 of the Transportation Code to take a blood specimen. Specifically, appellant contended that Lopez was not a "qualified technician" within the meaning of the statute because she was part of the hospital's "emergency medical services personnel." Two courts of appeals have held that phlebotomists were "qualified technicians" within the meaning of section 724.017, provided that their qualifications were established on the record. The record in this case showed that Lopez's primary duties were that of a phlebotomist and that she was qualified to be so. Lopez was trained to draw blood, and her primary duty at the hospital for the six years she was employed there was to draw blood. The Supreme Court concluded that Lopez was indeed qualified within the meaning of the statute. Furthermore, the Court concluded that functionally, Lopez was not emergency medical services personnel; "that training and her license and title had little to do with what she actually did at the hospital, which was almost exclusively drawing blood." Because Lopez did not function as emergency services personnel, section 724.017(c) and its restrictions on emergency services personnel are not applicable in this case. The Court reversed the appellate court that misapplied the statute to this facts of this case, and reinstated the judgment of the trial court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.