Jesse Thomas Sutherland v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• State failed to prove exigent circumstances as officer did not testify to any unusual delay in getting warrant or that he was confronted with emergency
• “[I]t would seem that the position advanced in Aviles that the Texas Transportation Code’s implied-consent provision applies to justify the warrantless mandatory blood draw of Section 724.012(b)(3)(B) is also constitutionally infirm.”
• “To the extent ] that Section . 724.012(b)(3)(B) can be read to permit, nonetheless, a warrantless seizure of a suspect’s blood in the absence of such exigent circumstances or the.suspect’s consent, it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.”
• discussing Beeman in the context of the remand of Aviles

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).