# State v. Villarreal, David

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 26, 2014 · 475 S.W.3d 784

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812315

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Texas v. David VILLARREAL, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 26, 2014
- **Citations:** 475 S.W.3d 784; 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1898; 2014 WL 6734178
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Yeary
- **Judges:** Alcala, Yeary, Price, Womack, Johnson, Cochran, Keller, Meyers, Keasler, Richardson, Newell, Keaslér, Hervey
- **Cited by:** 242 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812315

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “a DWI suspect’s privacy interest outweighs the State’s interest in preventing drunk driving through warrantless searches” and quoting the McNeely plurality in “stating that ‘the general importance of the government’s interest in this area does not justify depa…
- holding that implied con- give a blood sample. He refused, so blood-draw sent statutes, “taken by themselves, [do technician Adam Tomlinson performed the blood not] form a constitutionally valid alternat- draw without Appellant's consent while Officer ive to the Fourth Amendme…
- explaining that “necessary element of valid consent is the ability to limit or revoke it” and that “[i]t would be wholly inconsistent with these principles to uphold the warrantless search of a suspect’s blood on the basis of consent when a suspect has . . . expressly and uneq…
- holding that “a nonconsensual search of a DWI suspect’s blood conducted pursuant to the mandatory-blood-draw and implied-consent provisions in the Transportation Code, when undertaken in the absence of a warrant or any applicable exception to the warrant requirement, violates …
- holding that Zap did not “stand for the proposition that the government may exact from a citizen a generalized irrevocable waiver of Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for the enjoyment of everyday privileges, such as driving on the States roadways”

## Opinion text

YEARY, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, F.J., joined.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9812315. Public record. Not legal advice.