the State argues that exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless blood draw. Exigent circumstances exist when there is “no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant.” McNeely, 133 S.Ct. at 1560. The McNeely Court held that the ongoing dissipation of alcohol — which results in a steady destruction of evidence relevant to whether a person has violated a DWI law — by itself, does not supply the necessary exigency to permit a warrantless blood draw from a DWI suspect. Id. at 1561. “In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so.” Id. at 1561; see Sutherland, 436 S.W.3d at 40-41 (<HOLDING>). “Whether a warrantless blood test of a
holding all three conditions must be present to justify a warrantless seizure under the plain view doctrine holding that once federal agents had exclusive control of a footlocker its warrantless search could not be justified by any other exigency holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search holding that warrantless administration of fsts in nonalcohol controlled substance intoxication context was justified by the exigency exception holding that warrant was required because there was no exigency to justify warrantless blood draw