State v. Vicente Munoz, 08-13-00164-CR

Munoz was charged with felony DWI after a blood test result was suppressed; the trial court granted suppression for lack of exigent circumstances and no warrant; the State appealed.
Officer Jordan encountered Munoz at a scene with an odor of alcohol, Munoz unsteady, red eyes, and slurred speech; Munoz was transported to the station where a blood draw occurred without a warrant.
Munoz had seven prior DWI convictions; he was taken to hospital for a mandatory blood draw under Texas statute §724.012(b).
The officer did not obtain a warrant and testified she could have obtained one; she relied on the mandatory-blood-draw statute instead.
The trial court made specific findings that there were no exigent circumstances and that the blood result was admissible only if an exception applied; the appellate court reviews these findings de novo for legal conclusions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McNeely controls the suppression ruling on the warrantless blood draw	Munoz	State	McNeely applies; no exigent circumstances found
Whether good-faith reliance on then-existing law permits admission of the blood test	State	Munoz	No good-faith exception; 38.23 not applicable; suppression affirmed

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (established framework for warrantless blood draws in exigent circumstances)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (rejected per se exigency for dissipation of alcohol; requires totality of circumstances)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (retroactivity of new constitutional rules on direct review)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith reliance on warrants lowers suppression risk)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (good-faith exception for reasonable reliance on statutes or warrants)