Whitaker v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Briggs v. State

    560 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)   Cited 33 times

    ]"); Aviles , 385 S.W.3d at 115-16 ("This situation, as outlined in section 724.012, is one of the ‘circumstances’ the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held where blood may be drawn without a search warrant. Thus, the warrantless seizure of Aviles’s blood was conducted according to the prescriptions of the Transportation Code, and without violating Aviles’s Fourth Amendment rights.") (citing Beeman , 86 S.W.3d at 616 ); State v. Flores , 392 S.W.3d 229, 233 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 2012, pet. ref'd) (citing Beeman , 86 S.W.3d at 616, as authority that officers are permitted under section 724.011"to draw blood in certain limited circumstances even without a search warrant."), rev'd , State v. Flores , No. 04-13-00754-CR, 2014 WL 7183481 (Tex. App. — San Antonio Dec. 17, 2014, pet. ref'd) ; Whitaker v. State , No. 05-12-01116, 2013 WL 5969560, *3 (Tex. App. — Dallas Nov. 7, 2013, no pet.) (citing to Beeman , 86 S.W.3d at 616, as recognizing that implied consent law allows officer to draw blood in certain limited circumstances without a warrant). 2013—Missouri v. McNeely

  2. Munguia v. State

    NO. 02-14-00378-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 4, 2016)

    See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 724.012(b) (West 2011); Neesley, 239 S.W.3d at 782 n.2; Whitaker v. State, No. 05-12-01116-CR, 2013 WL 5969560, at *2 n.2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 7, 2013, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Officer Norman testified that his only basis for performing the mandatory blood draw was that Munguia had been convicted of DWI twice before.