Clayton Dean Reeder v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4558

Reeder, with two prior DWI convictions, was involved in a September 2012 deers- collision in Rusk County, Texas.
Police obtained a mandatory blood draw under Sec. 724.012(b)(3)(B) after Reeder refused consent, because of prior DWI convictions.
Reeder was charged with third-degree felony DWI and later pled guilty, receiving a six-year sentence.
Reeder moved to suppress the blood evidence as warrantless and unlawful; the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, the court reviews suppression rulings de novo while deferring to historical-fact findings,” and the court addresses whether the blood draw complied with Fourth Amendment requirements in light of McNeely and Texas implied-consent provisions.
The court ultimately holds that, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, the mandatory blood draw under Sec. 724.012(b)(3)(B) violates the Fourth Amendment and reverses for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mandatory blood draw under Sec. 724.012(b)(3)(B) violates the Fourth Amendment absent a warrant or exigent circumstances.	Reeder argues the statute’s repeat-offender draw is unconstitutional without a warrant.	State contends implied consent and statutory mandate justify warrantless blood draw.	Yes, it violates the Fourth Amendment absent warrant or exigent circumstances.

Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (implied consent as a valid search method)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draws generally require warrants absent emergencies)
McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (S. Ct. 2013) (exigent circumstances must be case-specific; no per se rule)
Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (rejected as controlling post-McNeely remand; reliance on implied consent)
Duron, 396 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (case law on reviewing suppression rulings)
Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)