With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the requirement of a warrant. See id. at 815; Gore v. State, 451 S.W.3d 182, 198 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. refd). Thus, whether law enforcement might be excused from obtaining a warrant in the context of a DWI suspect with dissipating alcohol is analyzed under a totality-of-the-circumstances review for exigent circumstances. Id. at 797 (relying on McNeely, 133 S.Ct. at 1557-58). To the extent seareh-and-seizure law changed because of McNeely and Villarreal, 'this court has held that the State may not rely on a “good-faith” exception to allow admission of evidence taken without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment by arguing that the officer relied on a good-faith belief that a statute permitted the warrantless search. Tercero, 467 S.W.3d at 6, 8, 10 (<HOLDING>); see State v. Hill, No. 03-13-00834-CR, 484

A: holding that independent of the implied consent law the fourth amendment requires an arrestees consent to be voluntary to justify a warrantless blood draw
B: holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw
C: holding that officers good faith belief that transportation code permitted nonconsensual warrantless blood draw is irrelevant to whether blooddraw results should be suppressed under fourth amendment
D: recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule
C.