Sandlin, Lawrence Clark, PD-1000-15

In June 2012 Officer Roger Smith stopped Lawrence Sandlin for unsafe lane changes; Sandlin had his 8‑year‑old daughter in the car and admitted drinking.
Officer Smith arrested Sandlin for DWI with a child passenger and Sandlin refused to give breath or blood samples.
Relying on Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b)(2) (mandatory blood draw for DWI with child passenger), the officer directed a nurse to draw Sandlin’s blood without a warrant.
Sandlin moved to suppress the blood‑test results under the Fourth Amendment (relying on Missouri v. McNeely). The trial court granted the motion.
The State appealed; while the appeal was pending the Court of Criminal Appeals had issued a non‑final opinion in State v. Villarreal rejecting the State’s statutory‑consent argument. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed suppression, relying on Villarreal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sandlin)	Held
Whether a warrantless blood draw mandated by Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b)(2) is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment	Mandatory implied‑consent / statutory scheme authorizes (irrevocable) consent in narrow circumstances, making warrantless blood draws reasonable	Consent was withdrawn; statutory mandatory draw cannot substitute for voluntary, Fourth Amendment consent	Court of Appeals affirmed suppression: statutory mandatory draw did not cure lack of voluntary consent (followed Villarreal)
Whether the court of appeals erred by treating a non‑final Court of Criminal Appeals opinion (Villarreal) as controlling	The State: the court of appeals should analyze the issue independently and not treat a non‑final opinion as binding; Villarreal lacked finality on rehearing	The court of appeals relied on Villarreal as persuasive and treated it as effectively dispositive	Court of Appeals relied on Villarreal to affirm; State asks this Court of Criminal Appeals to grant review and correct reliance on non‑final opinion

Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (warrant requirement analysis for nonconsensual blood draws)
Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (exclusionary‑rule considerations where officers rely on then‑settled law)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (limits on exclusion when officers follow a statute later held unconstitutional)
Yeager v. State, 727 S.W.2d 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (non‑final opinions of the Court of Criminal Appeals are not binding precedent)
State v. Mayorga, 901 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (exclusion requires evidence was obtained by exploiting an illegality)
State v. Mazuca, 375 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (exclusionary‑rule principles in Texas)
Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (statutes are presumed constitutional until determined otherwise)