Legal Opinion
Weems, Daniel James
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided May 25, 2016No. PD-0635-14PublishedCited by 65 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · KeaslerKeasler, J.
in which Keller, P. J, and Meyers, Johnson, Hervey, Alcala, Richardson, and Newell, JJ., joined.
At his felony driving-while-intoxicated trial, Daniel Weems moved to suppress the results of á warrantless blood draw. The trial judge denied his request. The court of appeals reversed, holding, among other things, that' the State failed to establish that Weems’s warrantless blood draw was justified by exigent circumstances. We agree and affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.
I
A. Trial
Around midnight in early June 2011, Weems drove himself and a friend back to his house from a nearby bar…
3Cases cited12 opinions
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Brigham City v. StuartSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Michigan v. TylerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by65 opinions
- State of Iowa v. Dale Dean Pettijohn Jr.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2017
- Cole v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2016
- Briggs v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2018
- State v. GarciaCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2018
- Cosino v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2016
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.