State v. David Villarreal

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the statute was unconstitutional as applied because the State conceded to the trial court that there was no consent, no exigency, and no warrant
• noting that the mandates of Section 724.012(b)(3)(B) come into play strictly when consent had been refused and, therefore, to say that it is based on implied consent is incongruent
• “[T]he constitutionality of the repeat offender provision of the mandatory blood draw law must be based on the previously recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.”
• “Although we agree that the statute required the officer to obtain a breath or blood sample, it did not require the officer to do so without first obtaining a warrant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).