State v. Travis Lee Wickson, 03-15-00661-CR

Trooper Wilhite stopped Travis Lee Wickson after observing speeding and lane deviations; odor of alcohol and SFST clues led to arrest for DWI with a child passenger (felony).
At the scene Wickson first refused a portable breath test (PBT) but later submitted to it; PBT showed .130 BAC and he was arrested.
After arrest Wilhite read the DIC-24 statutory warning and requested an evidentiary breath sample; Wickson initially refused.
Wilhite then told Wickson, because minors were present, he would obtain a mandatory blood specimen; Wickson then offered to give a breath sample and was transported to an Intoxilyzer and produced two valid samples (.097 BAC).
At a suppression hearing the trial court found Wickson’s later consent to the evidentiary breath test involuntary based solely on the trooper’s statement that he would obtain a mandatory blood draw (no mention of a warrant or exigency) and suppressed the breath-test results.
The State (appellant) appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by focusing on that single statement instead of the totality of circumstances and relying on Erdman, a rule later abrogated by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Issue	State's Argument	Wickson's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by suppressing the evidentiary breath test because Wickson’s later consent was involuntary after the trooper said he would obtain a mandatory blood draw	The trooper’s comment did not, standing alone, overbear Wickson’s will; totality of circumstances (video, demeanor, delay, cordial conversation, behavior during transport and testing) show voluntary consent, so suppression was error	The trooper’s non‑statutory statement that he would obtain a mandatory blood draw after Wickson refused the breath test coerced Wickson’s subsequent consent, making it involuntary	Trial court granted suppression of the breath-test results (consent found involuntary)

Bakntine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard: abuse of discretion review for suppression rulings)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial court fact findings based on credibility/demeanor)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent measured by totality of circumstances)
Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (consent must be free and voluntary; totality test)
Fienen v. State, 390 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (overruled Erdman; non‑statutory warnings not dispositive—must assess totality)
Erdman v. State, 861 S.W.2d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (prior rule finding certain officer misstatements of consequences could render consent involuntary)
Weaver v. State, 349 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (state must prove voluntariness by clear and convincing evidence)