requirement. With this guidance from the Supreme Court and the court of criminal appeals in mind, we now turn to the case before us. Application It is undisputed that Roop’s blood was collected without a warrant. Therefore, the State bore the burden of proving that the blood draw was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 672-73. On appeal, the State makes several arguments in support of the constitutionality of the blood draw. First, the State argues that, under Texas’s implied consent and mandatory blood draw statutes, Roop has consented to have her blood collected under certain circumstances. - As discussed above, this argument was rejected by the court of criminal appeals, and we will not discuss -it further. See Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d at 800 (<HOLDING>). . Second, the State argues that “[t]he
holding search not to violate fourth amendment where officers belief that apparent landlord had the power to consent and that he had not revoked that consent was reasonable emphasis added holding that implied consent that has been withdrawn or revoked by a suspect cannot serve as a substitute for the free and voluntary consent that the fourth amendment requires holding that independent of the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 because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime holding that the fourth amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is free to go before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary