Cole, Steven, PD-0077-15

Cole was convicted of intoxication manslaughter and sentenced to life; Court of Appeals reversed due to admission of blood test from a nonconsensual, warrantless draw.
Blood was drawn at 12:20 a.m. after arrest at 11:38 p.m.; approximately two hours elapsed from arrest to blood draw.
Accident killed another driver; scene involved a fire and substantial debris, causing traffic disruption and multiple officers to work the scene.
Cole admitted methamphetamine use; officer observed he was “tweaking” and believed meth affected him.
The blood sample showed amphetamine and methamphetamine; meth level described as high end of therapeutic range, possibly intoxicated.
Officer testified obtaining a warrant would typically take 1–1.5 hours; no warrant was sought.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exigent-circumstances analysis was correct	Cole (plaintiff) argues the court imposed an improper 'now or never' standard.	Cole contends exigency existed due to delay and methamphetamine concerns.	Exigency framework applied case-by-case; 'now or never' not required in every case.
Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless blood draw	Cole asserts substantial delay and drug dissipation undermine warrantless draw.	State argues meth and delay create exigency to avoid destruction or degradation of evidence.	State failed to show exigent circumstances; warrantless blood draw not justified.
Whether Texas Transportation Code § 724.012(b) violates the Fourth Amendment	Cole challenges mandatory blood draw absent warrant as unconstitutional under Fourth Amendment.	State argues statute, plus implied-consent framework, renders warrant unnecessary in limited situations.	Statute provides a framework for blood draws; not per se unconstitutional; requires exigency analysis context.
If statute is presumptively valid, must evidence be suppressed	Cole seeks suppression under exclusionary rules due to invalid warrantless draw.	State relies on presumptively valid statute and good-faith exceptions.	Texas good-faith exception limited; in this case suppression not required under state rule; but reversal for new trial due to improper exigency finding.

Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (exigency must be assessed case by case; dissipation of alcohol is factor)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood alcohol testing; exigency when destruction of evidence imminent)
Rhodes v. State, 240 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (consent/administrative doctrine related to blood draws)
Villarreal, S.W.3d (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (mandatory blood draw statute interpreted in Fourth Amendment context)
Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (exigency analysis; warrant impracticable focus; blood draw statute)