Legal Opinion

State v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 17, 2016No. 03-13-00834-CRPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

The State appeals from the trial court’s order granting appellee Will Hill’s motion to suppress. In three points of error, the State argues that the trial court abused its discretion by suppressing the blood test evidence that was obtained in accordance with section 724.0Í2(b) of the Texas Transportation Code, commonly known as the mandatory blood draw' statute. See Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012(b). We will affirm the trial court.

BACKGROUND

Prior to trial, Hill filed a- general motion to suppress. Both sides filed trial briefs, addressing whether the seizure of…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  5. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. McGuire v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2016
  2. Chase Erick Wheeler v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2019
  3. Fred Schneider v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2016
  4. State v. Elle Obering O'Brien, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API