In February, a magistrate judge ruled that police could use “all reasonable force necessary” to draw the blood of Catherine Amato, who was refusing to submit to any sobriety tests or provide samples of her breath or blood after being pulled over.

Bexar County Magistrate Judge Celeste Ramirez found that a San Antonio police officer had “probable cause” to believe that Amato was driving while intoxicated about 11:30 p.m. that night on Northwest Loop 410, the second time in less than two years that the prominent local businesswoman had been charged with that offense.

Nonetheless, on April 24, less than two months after Amato’s blood was forcibly drawn, outgoing Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood’s office dismissed Amato’s DWI charge. By way of an explanation, an assistant DA scrawled in a motion to dismiss that there was “no probable cause for arrest” — an apparent contradiction of both a police report and a search warrant affidavit, both of which included details of Amato swerving in traffic, nearly hitting the officer’s patrol car, swaying on her feet and possessing open containers of vodka in her purse and car.

Now Amato is seeking to have all records of the case destroyed; an expunction hearing is set for next month. Amato, 63, is the wife of Charlie Amato, chairman and co-founder of SWBC and a Spurs shareholder. (Tim Duncan, a former Spur, endorsed LaHood in his unsuccessful re-election campaign this year.)

Print subscribers get a password for your existing account here

Related: Bexar County DA candidates weigh in on dismissal of prominent San Antonio businesswoman's DWI charge

Catherine Amato owns and operates multiple Subway and Ruby Tuesday restaurants in the area with her partners.

LaHood did not return a call requesting comment. Leslie Garza, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, did not release a statement in response to my questions, including whether Amato’s blood results had been returned from a lab.

On Thursday, County Clerk Gerry Rickhoff marveled at the “unusual trajectory” of Amato’s case, calling it a “rogue event.”

“This is moving fast,” he said. “This is like a rocket. A normal DWI takes like a year.”

Rickhoff added, “Every person in the criminal justice system is supposed to be treated as fairly as every other person. These rogue events, they’re not unknown to us. And they’ll happen again. … Nico has a great opportunity to salvage his reputation, and he’s just not doing it.”

On Thursday, I called a number listed as Amato’s; a woman answered to “Cathy,” but when I explained I was calling about the DWI arrest, she said, “You have the wrong number” and hung up.

Later that day, I reached Jonathan Watkins, Amato’s attorney in the February DWI case.

“I firmly believe the dismissal was valid,” he said, declining to comment further.

Amato’s attorney for the pending expunction is Rolando Ramos of Ramos & Del Cueto PLLC, where LaHood worked as a defense lawyer before he was elected district attorney. Ramos did not return a call requesting comment.

Frank Davis, a local defense lawyer who served as expunction attorney for the Texas Department of Public Safety for 15 years, said blood results can take up to six months to process. He echoed Rickhoff’s assessment that Amato’s case is speeding through the system.

“That’s very unusual for a dismissed case,” Davis said. “There seems to be some reason to dismiss that’s not the normal course.”

He added that the expunction alone was on a fast track.

“That is very fast,” Davis said. “I’ve never heard of one happening that fast except maybe in a very small county.”

A glowing profile of Amato in the January/February 2011 issue of NSIDE Business Magazine described her as “a businesswoman who exudes a confident aura of elegance, intelligence and sophistication.” A similarly flattering profile in the September/October 2009 issue of San Antonio Woman, titled “The Subway Queen,” described her as “a slim and elegant woman and a self-described health nut.”

Read more: LaHood has become a 'lame duck'

In July 2016, Amato was pulled over by San Antonio police on Interstate 10 for speeding. An officer noted her “bloodshot and glassy eyes” and “a strong odor of intoxicants emitting from her breath” in a police report.

Consenting to field sobriety tests, Amato was unable to recite the alphabet or keep her balance. Placed under arrest, she refused to provide a breath or blood sample, so her blood was forcibly drawn.

In January 2017, prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain in which Amato’s DWI charge was reduced to “obstruction of a highway,” a lesser charge. She was placed on deferred adjudication, a form of probation, from which she was dismissed early in May 2017.

Less than a year later, on Feb. 26, Amato again was pulled over by San Antonio police, this time on Northwest Loop 410.

According to the police report, Amato had veered into an officer’s lane, nearly hitting him, before veering into other lanes, causing another vehicle to change lanes to avoid a collision. Walking up to her car, a black BMW, the officer “immediately” noticed that Amato had “bloodshot/glassy” and “droopy” eyes. The report also noted her “slurred” speech and “strong” breath and that she had a “foul odor to herself.”

Amato began arguing with the officer, insisting that she’d been “eating chips,” might have been on the phone and had not consumed any alcohol. After she refused to submit to field sobriety tests, Amato was placed under arrest.

In Amato’s BMW, the officer found three small bottles of vodka: one empty, one full and the other “half empty inside her purse.” Again, Amato refused to provide samples of her breath or blood.

Before the officer drove Amato to magistrate court, the businesswoman said, “There’s a reason we hate you guys. We hate your guts.” Arriving at court, Amato said, “What goes around comes around. Trust me. I was distracted,” according to the report.

Seeking a judge’s authorization for a blood draw, an officer listed reasons for Amato’s arrest in an affidavit for a search warrant. The judge then signed a search warrant, asserting that the officer had “probable cause” to believe that Amato was driving while intoxicated.

Less than two months later, LaHood’s office dismissed Amato’s charge. Assistant District Attorney Jacob Kemmy listed the reason for the dismissal as “other,” explaining in the motion there was “no probable cause for arrest.”

Kemmy did not return a message requesting comment.

A first DWI is typically a Class B misdemeanor, sometimes a Class A if blood alcohol content is above a certain percentage. The potential penalty for Class A is a fine not to exceed $4,000 and confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year.

Since 2008, 1,170 people have been arrested and charged with the same charge Amato faced: driving while intoxicated — open can. Of those, roughly 260 cases were dismissed for various reasons, according to an analysis of court records. Only 51 were dismissed under the “other” category.

That translates to about five cases a year, or just 4 percent of all “driving while intoxicated — open can” cases.

“These are like rogue waves,” Rickhoff said. “Lady Justice isn’t necessarily blind.”

bchasnoff@express-news.net

Staff Writer Emilie Eaton and Data Editor Luke Whyte contributed to this column.