State v. Sarah Beth Keller, 05-15-00919-CR

On Jan. 12, 2013, Sarah Beth Keller was involved in a serious intersection collision; a bystander recorded her erratic driving and called 911.
Keller and others were transported to hospitals; Keller was placed in a medically induced coma after being combative.
Officer Jason Hinkel reviewed the video and, believing Keller was intoxicated (unknown intoxicant), obtained a warrantless blood draw at the hospital; the sample was positive for hydrocodone.
Keller moved to suppress the blood-test results as an illegal warrantless search; the trial court granted the motion.
The State appealed interlocutorily, arguing exigent circumstances and reliance on Texas implied-consent/withdrawal statutes.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that under the totality of circumstances the warrantless blood draw was reasonable under the exigent-circumstances exception and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Keller's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment	Warrantless blood draw from an unconscious, nonconsenting person is an unreasonable search; no exigency existed	Warrantless draw was reasonable under exigent circumstances and supported by implied-consent statutes	Reversed trial court: exigent circumstances made the warrantless draw reasonable
Whether implied-consent/withdrawal statutes dispense with a warrant	Implied consent does not authorize nonconsensual, warrantless blood draws post-McNeely and Villarreal	Statutory implied consent and withdrawal provisions justify warrantless draw	Court pretermitted decision on statutes because exigency resolved the case
Whether availability of other officers or time to get a warrant negates exigency	Time to obtain warrant reasonable and feasible; lack of exigency	Staffing, scene-processing time, and officer’s inability/experience to obtain a warrant support exigency	Availability of other officers does not automatically defeat exigency; totality supports exigency
Role of dissipation/medical treatment in exigency analysis	Natural dissipation alone (esp. alcohol) does not create per se exigency	Unknown intoxicant and possible medical treatment risk evidence loss, increasing exigency	Totality (unknown substance, dissipation, medical treatment, scene logistics) supports exigency

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw can be reasonable under totality of circumstances)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (no per se exigency from alcohol dissipation; exigency is case-specific under totality)
State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App.) (addressing limits of implied-consent authority for warrantless blood draws)