With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2015 with a new opinion. State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784, 817 (Tex. Crim.App.2015). 9 . The statute, by its own terms, does not address whether a warrant is required before a mandatory blood draw is taken; it simply requires that the blood be drawn. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d at 811; see Tercero, 467 S.W.3d at 11. 10 . The State argues that Villarreal improperly rejected the balancing test because the United States Supreme Court has applied the balancing test without considering a special exception to the warrant requirement in Riley v. California, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014). But Riley dealt with "the reasonableness of a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest” — the third exception recognized in Villarreal. Id. at 2482; see Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d at 796 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the search fell within a recognized

A: recognizing exigent circumstance exception to warrant requirement
B: recognizing exception
C: recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances
D: recognizing the searchincidenttoarrest exception to the warrant requirement
D.