Ruiz, Jose, PD-1362-15

Late-night two-vehicle crash: driver of a Lincoln fled; officers located insurance and beer cans in the vehicle and later found Jose Ruiz unconscious in a field behind a carwash.
Ruiz was unresponsive at the scene and at the hospital; EMS performed sternum rubs and transported him; Sergeant McBride arrested him for DWI and arranged a hospital blood draw.
Sergeant McBride testified it would have taken ~2–3 hours to obtain a warrant at that hour, only two officers were on duty, and no local procedures existed to secure a warrant more quickly.
State drew Ruiz’s blood without a warrant under Texas Transportation Code implied-consent provisions (sections 724.011, 724.014) and relied alternatively on exigent circumstances.
Trial court granted Ruiz’s motion to suppress the blood results, finding no exigency and concluding it was bound by Missouri v. McNeely; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ruiz)	Held
Whether statutory implied consent (Tex. Transp. Code §§724.011, 724.014) supplies voluntary consent to justify a warrantless blood draw of an unconscious suspect	Implied-consent statute deems an unconscious person not to have withdrawn consent, so a warrantless draw is reasonable	Unconscious person cannot give voluntary consent or revoke it; statutory presumption does not replace Fourth Amendment consent requirement	Sections 724.011/724.014 do not equate to voluntary consent for Fourth Amendment purposes; statute is not a per se exception to the warrant requirement (State did not meet burden)
Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw	Officer faced imminent dissipation of alcohol, logistical barriers to getting a warrant at midnight, few officers on duty, and time-critical investigation—creating exigency	No evidence showing imminent destruction of evidence or impossibility of obtaining a warrant by phone/other expedited means; Ruiz was admitted overnight and not a flight risk	No exigent circumstances shown on the record; totality of facts did not justify bypassing a warrant under McNeely

Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency; exigency analyzed on totality of circumstances)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (blood draw without a warrant upheld where delay to obtain a warrant would risk destruction of evidence)
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968) (consent to search must be freely and voluntarily given)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (U.S. 2011) (exigent-circumstances framework for warrantless searches)
Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (burden-shifting in suppression hearings: defendant shows a warrantless search occurred; State must prove reasonableness)