By Deandra Grant, J.D., M.S. (Pharmaceutical Science), ACS-CHAL Forensic Lawyer-Scientist
When law enforcement searches your vehicle, your home, or your person without a valid warrant and finds evidence they then use to charge you with a crime, the question of whether that evidence can be used against you is not simply a matter of federal constitutional law. In Texas, it is also a matter of state statutory law. And Texas law is more protective of defendants than most people realize.
Understanding both layers of protection, how they interact, and where they differ is essential to building an effective defense in any Texas criminal case involving a search.
"Deandra Grant Law – Criminal & DWI Defense handled my case with diligence and professionalism. Deandra Grant's reputation is stellar and now I know why. She has a team of individuals who provide quality service."
- N. Coulter
"Deandra Grant Law – Criminal & DWI Defense fights hard for their clients and is always willing to go above and beyond. They are the best firm for DWI cases in DFW and beyond. Definitely hire them to represent you in any pending cases."
- P. Williams
"Deandra Grant made a tough situation so much better. She listened to my concerns and helped me so much with my case. I would recommend her to anyone needing legal services."
- M. Haley
The Fourth Amendment: The Federal Floor
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and generally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before conducting a search. A valid warrant must be issued by a neutral magistrate, supported by probable cause, and must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
The federal remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is the exclusionary rule, established in Mapp v. Ohio (1961): evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search is generally inadmissible at trial.
But the federal exclusionary rule has significant exceptions. The most important is the good faith exception, established in United States v. Leon (1984): if law enforcement officers conducted a search in reasonable reliance on a warrant that is later found to be invalid, the evidence may still be admitted. The theory is that exclusion serves no deterrent purpose when officers acted in good faith. The federal courts have also recognized the inevitable discovery doctrine: if the government can show the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means anyway, it may be admitted even if the original discovery was unconstitutional.
These exceptions significantly limit the practical reach of the federal exclusionary rule. In federal court, a constitutional violation does not automatically mean evidence is excluded.
Article 38.23: Texas Goes Further
Here is where Texas law diverges and where defendants in Texas cases have a significant advantage that the federal framework alone does not provide.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23 establishes an independent state exclusionary rule. It provides that no evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be admitted against the accused in a criminal case.
The critical difference from federal law: Texas Article 38.23 has no good faith exception.
If evidence is obtained illegally in Texas, whether the violation is of the state or federal constitution, or of any Texas statute, it is excluded. Full stop. The fact that an officer acted in reasonable reliance on a warrant later found defective does not save the evidence in Texas state court the way it might in federal court. The fact that the evidence might have been discovered eventually through lawful means is a much more constrained doctrine in Texas than under federal jurisprudence.
This matters enormously in practice. Cases that might survive federal constitutional scrutiny can still result in suppression of evidence in Texas state court because Article 38.23 casts a wider net. A defense attorney who is only thinking about federal Fourth Amendment doctrine and not about the independent Texas statutory ground may be leaving their client’s strongest argument on the table.
What Warrantless Searches Look Like in Practice
The warrant requirement is not absolute under either federal or Texas law. Courts recognize exceptions, and law enforcement routinely invokes them. The most common exceptions you will encounter in Texas criminal cases include:
Consent. If the person being searched voluntarily consents to the search, no warrant is required. The key word is voluntarily. Consent obtained through coercion, deception, or a misrepresentation of authority can be challenged. The government bears the burden of proving consent was freely and voluntarily given.
Search incident to lawful arrest. Officers may search a person and the area within their immediate control at the time of a lawful arrest. The lawfulness of the arrest itself is the predicate. If the arrest was unlawful, the search incident to it falls with it.
Exigent circumstances. When there is an urgent need to act (ex. imminent destruction of evidence, hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, or a threat to officer safety) courts permit warrantless searches. But exigency is fact-specific, and the claim that circumstances were urgent enough to bypass the warrant requirement is subject to challenge.
Automobile exception. If officers have probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of a crime, they may search it without a warrant. The scope of that search, however, is limited to areas where the evidence could reasonably be found.
Plain view. Evidence in plain view during a lawful encounter may be seized without a warrant. The officer must be lawfully present, and the incriminating nature of the item must be immediately apparent.
Each of these exceptions is a potential attack point. The question is not just whether the exception exists. It is whether the specific facts of your case actually satisfy the legal requirements for that exception. Often, they don’t.
The DWI Connection: Where Fourth Amendment Suppression Does the Most Work
For anyone charged with DWI in Texas, the Fourth Amendment and Article 38.23 are not abstract constitutional principles. They are among the most powerful tools in the defense.
The traffic stop. Every DWI case begins with a stop. The officer must have had reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic violation or criminal activity was occurring. A stop based on a hunch, or on facts that do not actually constitute a violation, is unlawful and under Article 38.23, everything that follows an unlawful stop is subject to suppression. The dashcam and body camera footage from the stop are among the first things we request in any DWI case.
The blood draw. Following Missouri v. McNeely (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood does not automatically create the exigency needed to justify a warrantless blood draw. Officers generally need a warrant. If a blood draw was conducted without a warrant and without a recognized exception, the blood test results (often the prosecution’s most powerful evidence) may be suppressible under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 38.23.
Consent to search. In vehicle stops, officers frequently ask for consent to search. Consent given under pressure, after a prolonged detention, or without a clear understanding that refusal was an option is consent worth challenging. Evidence found in a vehicle search where consent was not truly voluntary is subject to suppression.
In my practice, a suppression motion is not a Hail Mary. It is a methodical legal argument grounded in the specific facts of the stop, the search, and the evidence collection. In many DWI cases, a successful suppression motion eliminates the prosecution’s strongest evidence entirely.
Case Results
How Suppression Motions Work in Texas
When evidence was obtained through an unlawful search, the defense files a motion to suppress that evidence before trial. The motion sets out the factual basis for the challenge and the legal argument for why the evidence should be excluded.
The court holds a suppression hearing at which the government bears the burden of proving the legality of the search. Officers testify, and the defense has the opportunity to cross-examine them, challenge the consistency between their testimony and the contemporaneous documentation, and present evidence supporting the defense’s version of events.
If the court grants suppression, the excluded evidence cannot be used at trial. In DWI cases specifically, suppression of a blood or breath test result can fundamentally reshape the prosecution’s case by eliminating the per se BAC evidence and forcing the state to prove impairment through officer observations alone, which is a significantly harder case to make and a significantly easier case to challenge.
Even when suppression is not granted, the suppression hearing produces sworn testimony from the arresting officer that can be used at trial. Inconsistencies between what an officer said at the suppression hearing and what they say at trial are powerful impeachment material.
Speak With Deandra Grant Law
If you are facing criminal charges in Texas based on evidence obtained through a search, warrantless or otherwise, the legality of that search deserves immediate examination. Managing Partner Deandra Grant brings more than 30 years of criminal defense experience, a Master’s Degree in Pharmaceutical Science, and an ACS-CHAL Forensic Lawyer-Scientist designation to every case. That combination means forensic evidence in your case is evaluated not just as a legal matter, but as a scientific one. The procedural validity of how it was obtained is examined with the same rigor as the evidence itself.
Call (214) 225-7117 or visit texasdwisite.com to schedule a confidential consultation.
Firm Accolades
Better Business Bureaus
D Magazine
