By Deandra Grant & Griffin Grant

Welcome to The Defense File, where we examine the criminal cases of public figures through the lens of Texas criminal law. Each entry looks at what happened in court, what the defense argued, and what a defendant would have faced, and how they might have been defended, if the same facts had occurred in Texas. This one lands squarely in our home practice area, DWI, and it is a near-perfect illustration of where these cases are really won.

The Incident

On the night of October 13, 2020, Denver Broncos running back Melvin Gordon was pulled over in downtown Denver for speeding. Officers reported the indicators they are trained to look for: a moderate odor of alcohol, slurred speech, watery eyes, and swaying. Gordon acknowledged having had a drink, and after field sobriety tests he was arrested for driving under the influence and cited for excessive speeding. He declined a roadside breath test; a blood sample was taken, with results pending. The Broncos acknowledged the incident, and Gordon publicly apologized weeks later.

The Charges and What Happened in Court

Gordon’s defense team played both the calendar and the evidence. Through a series of continuances they moved the case past the end of the 2020 NFL season, then pleaded not guilty in January 2021 with a jury trial set for April. The substance of their position was a challenge to the traffic stop: the defense raised evidentiary concerns serious enough that, according to reporting on the case, prosecutors concluded the blood results would be suppressed because of how the stop was conducted. On March 10, 2021, the Denver District Attorney dismissed the DUI charges. Gordon pleaded guilty instead to reckless driving arising from the speeding, an eight-point license penalty, twelve hours of community service (already completed), and $479 in fines and costs.

The specific defect matters. Denver police told Gordon at the scene that he could only be given a blood test rather than the breath test Colorado law otherwise entitled him to choose, citing COVID-19 precautions. The Denver DA’s office later said publicly that the blood test had been obtained on a false premise, since the pandemic was not a valid legal basis to deny a driver the statutory choice between breath and blood. That defect in how the test was obtained, not any dispute about Gordon’s actual alcohol level, is what put the blood results at risk of suppression and drove the dismissal.

The stakes behind that outcome were enormous. A DUI conviction carried a likely three-game NFL suspension and would have allowed the Broncos to void millions in guaranteed salary (reported at around $4.5 million). By resolving the case without a DUI conviction, and counsel were careful to stress the reckless-driving plea was wholly separate from the DUI, Gordon preserved both his roster spot and his guarantees. He went on to play several more NFL seasons before retiring in October 2025, signing a ceremonial one-day contract with the Chargers, where his career began.

The Texas Analysis

Melvin Gordon’s case is the kind Texas DWI lawyers think about constantly, because it was won the way some Texas DWI cases are won: not at trial over a breath or blood number, but pretrial, on the lawfulness of the stop. In Texas, the tool that does that work is Article 38.23, one of the most defendant-friendly exclusionary rules in the country. And the outcome Gordon achieved, avoiding a conviction, not merely a lighter sentence, is exactly the outcome that matters most under Texas law, where the consequences of a DWI conviction reach far beyond the courtroom.

DWI in Texas

In Texas the charge is DWI, not DUI, and intoxication is defined two ways. Under Section 49.01, a person is intoxicated either by losing the normal use of mental or physical faculties because of alcohol or drugs, or by having a blood or breath alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher. That two-pronged definition matters here, because the State does not strictly need a chemical number to prosecute. An officer’s observations, such as odor, slurred speech, swaying, and poor field-sobriety performance, can support the normal use prong on their own. A first DWI, under Section 49.04, is a Class B misdemeanor: a mandatory minimum of 72 hours in jail, up to 180 days, and a fine up to $2,000. A BAC of 0.15 or higher elevates it to a Class A misdemeanor under Section 49.04(d), a threshold that has been in Texas law since 2011.

The Case Was Won on the Fourth Amendment

This is the heart of it. Gordon’s case did not turn on his blood alcohol level; it turned on the stop. In Texas, the mechanism that produces that kind of result is Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the state exclusionary rule. It is broader than its federal counterpart in one crucial respect: Texas has no good-faith exception. If evidence is obtained in violation of the constitution or the laws of Texas or the United States, it is excluded, full stop.

And here is what makes the stop the highest-value target in a DWI case: everything flows from it. If the stop or the detention was unlawful, then the officer’s observations, the field-sobriety tests, and the blood draw that followed are all fruit of the poisonous tree, and all of it goes. That is a more complete victory than suppressing the blood alone. Suppress only the blood, and the State can still try the normal use prong on the officer’s observations; suppress the stop, and there is nothing left to try. Gordon’s outcome, a DUI dismissed because the blood, and the foundation for everything else, was tainted by how it was obtained, is the Texas Article 38.23 playbook exactly.

Breath, Blood and the ALR

Gordon declined a breath test and a blood sample was drawn. In Texas, that sequence implicates two separate tracks. The criminal case is one; the Administrative License Revocation, or ALR, is the other. It is a civil proceeding against the driver’s license that runs on its own clock. The deadline to request an ALR hearing is 15 days from the date the notice of suspension is served, not the date of arrest. Miss it and the suspension takes effect automatically. On the blood itself, after Missouri v. McNeely and Birchfield v. North Dakota, a non-consensual blood draw in Texas generally requires a warrant, and a warrant built on an unlawful stop, or on a denial of a driver’s statutory testing choice the way Gordon’s was, is vulnerable to the same Article 38.23 challenge. The breath refusal, for its part, is admissible at the criminal trial as circumstantial evidence of guilt, so refusing testing trades one evidentiary problem for another rather than erasing it.

From DWI to Reckless Driving: The Texas Reduction

Gordon pleaded to reckless driving, and Texas has a direct analog. A DWI that cannot be dismissed but is weak on proof may be negotiated down to a lesser traffic offense, most commonly obstruction of a highway or passageway (Section 42.03) or reckless driving under the Transportation Code. The value of that reduction is not the smaller fine; it is that the conviction is no longer a DWI, and in many cases the reduction is paired with deferred adjudication rather than a straight plea, meaning a defendant who successfully completes the term ends up with no final conviction on the reduced charge either. A DWI conviction enhances every future DWI, cannot be sealed once it is a conviction, and carries the license and insurance consequences that attach to the offense by name. A reduction to reckless driving, especially one resolved through deferred adjudication, severs all of that.

Why the Reduction Was the Whole Game

For Gordon, the difference between a DUI conviction and a reckless-driving plea was measured in millions of dollars and games missed. That is an unusually vivid version of a dynamic that applies to ordinary clients too. The collateral consequences of a Texas DWI conviction, meaning license suspension, sharply higher insurance and the SR-22 requirement, a permanent record that cannot be expunged after a conviction, professional-licensing and employment fallout, and, for non-citizens, immigration exposure, frequently dwarf the fine and the jail time. That is why avoiding the conviction, not just the sentence, is the central objective. Texas built a tool for exactly this: deferred adjudication available for a first DWI where the BAC is below 0.15 and there is no prior DWI, with an ignition interlock required and, on successful completion, eligibility for an order of nondisclosure. Deferred adjudication, whether on the DWI itself or on a reduced charge, is the Texas route to the same destination Gordon reached: resolving the matter without a DWI conviction on the record.

How Would the Defense Approach this in Texas?

  • Start with the stop, then the detention, then the arrest. Article 38.23 work is sequential: was there a lawful basis for the stop, did reasonable suspicion support extending it into a DWI investigation, and was there probable cause to arrest? A defect in any link can take down everything after it.
  • Attack the blood warrant and the science. The warrant affidavit, the McNeely/Birchfield warrant requirement, whether the driver was properly given the statutory choice between breath and blood, the chain of custody, and the gas-chromatography analysis itself are all fair game.
  • Do not concede the normal use prong. Odor, red eyes, and swaying have innocent explanations, and field-sobriety tests are only as good as their administration. The squad-car and body-worn video is often the most important exhibit in the case, and often for the defense.
  • Run the ALR track in parallel. The 15-day deadline is unforgiving, but the ALR hearing is also free discovery: it can be used to subpoena the officer and lock in sworn testimony months before the criminal trial.
  • Negotiate toward a non-DWI disposition. Whether by reduction to obstruction or reckless driving, ideally paired with deferred adjudication, or by deferred adjudication on the DWI itself, the goal is to keep a DWI conviction off the record, because that conviction, not the sentence, is usually the most expensive part.

What This Case Illustrates

Melvin Gordon’s case is a clean illustration of where DWI cases are actually decided. The headlines focused on the dismissal and the salary he saved, but the legal work that produced both happened pretrial, in a challenge to how the stop and the testing were handled, not in a courtroom argument about how much he had to drink. In Texas, that is the rule rather than the exception. Article 38.23 makes the lawfulness of the stop, the detention, the arrest, and the blood warrant the first and most important questions in any DWI case, and a defect in any of them can unravel the State’s proof before a jury is ever seated.

And the outcome Gordon secured, no conviction, not merely a lighter one, reflects the right objective. In Texas, the conviction itself, with its license, insurance, enhancement, and permanent-record consequences, is usually the thing worth fighting hardest to avoid. The number on the breath or blood test is where these cases look like they live. The lawfulness of the stop is where they are won.

Sources

The Defense File is an educational series. All Texas analysis is hypothetical and does not constitute legal advice about any specific case.

If you are facing a DWI in Texas, call (214) 225-7117 for a free, confidential consultation. The 15-day ALR deadline runs from the date your suspension notice is served. Don’t wait. Or schedule online at texasdwisite.com.