A controversial warrantless blood draw will not be allowed as evidence in the trial of former El Paso boxer Joel Garcia, who is accused of killing three people in a 2014 Christmas Eve accident, the state’s highest criminal appeals court ruled.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled Dec. 12 that 210th District Court Judge Gonzalo Garcia “did not abuse his discretion” when he threw out the blood test results, ruling that the warrantless blood draw violated Joel Garcia’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Joel Garcia is charged with three counts of intoxicated manslaughter in connection with a wreck that killed Joshua Deal, 23; Isaiah Deal, 19; and Shannon Nicole Del Rio, 22, on Christmas Eve in 2014.

More:State’s highest criminal appeals court to hear blood arguments in Joel Garcia case

Joel Garcia allegedly ran a red light at about 1:45 a.m. at Joe Battle Boulevard and Vista del Sol Drive. Joel Garcia’s Chevrolet Camaro then struck the Pontiac Grand Am carrying the Deal brothers and Del Rio.

The three died from injuries sustained in the wreck.

Joel Garcia, who is out of jail on bond as he awaits trial, allegedly had a blood-alcohol level of 0.268 on the night of the wreck based on the blood test results. The legal limit in Texas is .08.

He is also charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance.

Related:Joel Garcia case could be heard by state's highest criminal appeals court

Joel Garcia's alleged use of cocaine has been a major element in appeals filed by state prosecutors and defense lawyers.

A gag order issued in the case by Judge Garcia prevents prosecutors and defense lawyers from discussing the case. A trial date has not been set.

History of the appeals

Judge Garcia threw out the defendant’s blood samples in July 2015, ruling that El Paso police officers violated Joel Garcia’s Fourth Amendment rights when they ordered Del Sol Medical Center staff to take a blood sample before obtaining a warrant.

According to court documents, Joel Garcia refused to provide the blood sample voluntarily.

State prosecutors and police have claimed exigent circumstances made the blood draw urgent — Joel Garcia was about to receive an IV at the hospital.

Prosecutors argued that officers feared any medication given to the defendant would lead to "imminent destruction of evidence."

State prosecutors also argued that if Garcia had cocaine in his system, officers were not sure how it might affect any medications he received.

Defense lawyers said officers had plenty of time to get a warrant but failed to do so. They also contended that officers did not know at the time the blood sample was taken that Joel Garcia might have cocaine in his system.

During the motion to suppress hearing, the officers who made the decision to take the blood without a warrant testified, as did the hospital medical staff and other emergency responders.

The timeline of the events and the credibility of the witnesses were the deciding factors for Judge Garcia, the justices state.

More: Boxer out on bond, awaits trial in fatal crash

Timeline of the wreck, tests

Officers arrived at the scene about 1:52 a.m. One of the officers left the scene at about 2:40 or 2:45 a.m. to begin the process of obtaining a warrant. Around the same time, medical personnel were taking Joel Garcia to the hospital, court documents state.

The officer arrived at a police substation to get the warrant about 2:53 a.m.

Joel Garcia was admitted to the hospital about 3:01 a.m.

Another officer at the hospital saw medical staff preparing to treat Joel Garcia, who was allegedly being uncooperative, with an IV, court documents state. The doctor treating Joel Garcia canceled the IV when he said he did not want it.

More: Families recall loved ones killed Christmas Eve

One of the officers testified that he was too far away to hear the doctor cancel the IV. He added that he was “very certain that (at) any moment” Joel Garcia “would be injected with an IV,” according to documents.

Another officer testified that he believed an IV was imminent, documents state.

One of the officers at the hospital then called the officer at the police substation to report that Joel Garcia was going to get an IV.

The officer at the substation told the officer at the hospital to get a blood sample even without the warrant.

The officer at the hospital then ordered medical staff to get the blood sample.

The phlebotomist who took the blood sample testified that the officer at the hospital told her to take the sample, even though he said “that they didn’t have the paperwork,” documents state.

The officer then told the phlebotomist to wait “for them to get” the warrant, documents state.

She left but was called back at about 3:17 a.m. and told to take the samples. She complied and took blood samples from Joel Garcia.

Joel Garcia never received any IV treatment at hospital, according to testimony.

After hearing the testimony, Judge Garcia stated that he believed the officers, “with regard to the establishment of factors in being able to make a determination whether the defendant was intoxicated, therefore enabling them and providing sufficient evidence to justify a blood warrant,” court documents state.

Although, he then added that he found the officers were “not credible in making a determination in their minds that there were exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless blood draw,” documents state.

Judge Garcia never said during the hearing whether the officers were “lying or not,” but he said he didn’t find that portion of their testimony to be credible, the justices state.

Judge Garcia then ruled that there was no exigent circumstances and the officers violated Joel Garcia’s Fourth Amendment rights. He ordered that the blood samples could not be used in the defendant’s trial.

Appeals fight begins

After Judge Garcia's ruling, state prosecutors appealed the decision to the Texas Eighth District Court of Appeals. The appeals court ruled in favor of the state prosecutors.

The justice stated in an opinion released in February 2017 that exigent circumstances existed that forced the officers to order the blood sample.

Texas Eighth District Court of Appeals Justice Ann Crawford McClure wrote in the court’s opinion that the officers rightfully had a fear that possible consumption of the cocaine could impact the blood samples.

They reversed Judge Garcia’s ruling and ordered that the blood sample be allowed as evidence in Joel Garcia’s trial.

Defense lawyers then appealed the decision to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Highest criminal appeals court

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals justices, who were not required to take up the appeal, agreed to hear the case in September 2017.

More than a year later, a majority concurred with Judge Garcia’s ruling. Judge Michael Keasler wrote in the appeals court opinion that Judge Garcia “did not abuse his discretion in so ruling” that the officers’ violated Joel Garcia’s constitutional rights.

The court notes that Judge Garcia conducted an “extensive hearing” on the defense's motion to suppress the blood sample before making his ruling.

The justices added that there was no information presented by prosecutors that the officers had knowledge that Joel Garcia might have taken cocaine. Therefore, they ruled that no exigent circumstances existed.

“The officers’ testimony was uniformly to the effect that they suspected Garcia of alcohol-induced intoxication,” the opinion states. “There is nothing in the record to show how or why the officers might reasonably have suspected that Garcia was also using cocaine. A search cannot be justified by what it uncovers.”

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Michael Keasler, along with judges Barbara Hervey, Elsa Alcala, Bert Richardson, David Newell and Scott Walker ruled that the blood sample should be inadmissible and Judge Garcia’s ruling should be reinstated.

Presiding Judge Sharon Keller, however, disagreed with the court’s ruling and wrote a dissenting opinion. Judges Mary Lou Keel and Kevin Yeary joined the dissent.

Keller argued that the officers acted within the law and handled the situation appropriately.

“It strikes me that the police officers in this case acted in the most reasonable way possible under these unruly circumstances: They waited for a lull in the treatment, marveled at their great good fortune that no evidence-compromising procedure had yet occurred, and extracted the evidence in a manner that did not adversely impact the on-going medical evaluation and treatment,” Keller wrote.

She continued, “We should not conclude in such circumstances that they acted unreasonably. Instead, we should fashion a rule that endorses, rather than condemns, such reasonable police conduct.”

Aaron Martinez may be reached at 546-6249; aamartinez@elpasotimes.com; @AMartinez31 on Twitter.

Want more news like this? Click here to subscribe to elpasotimes.com.

Read more:

Boxer's blood samples admissible in fatal DWI trial

Blood sample of boxer in fatal accident thrown out

Court hears case of blood taken in fatal crash