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
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 recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw holding that independent of the implied consent law the fourth amendment requires an arrestees consent to be voluntary to justify a warrantless blood draw holding that motive of officers is generally irrelevant to fourth amendment analysis