Skip to main content

Cole v. State

Citations

  • 490 S.W.3d 918
  • 2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 84
  • 2016 WL 3018203

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that availability of other officers on scene to obtain warrant is relevant but not sole consideration in exigency analysis for warrantless blood draw
  • “Intrusions into the human body implicate an individual’s ‘most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy,’ and therefore are considered searches that fall under the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” (quoting Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 148 (2013))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alcala, Hervey, Johnson, Keasler, Keller, Meyers, Newell, Richardson, Yeary

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

51 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.