court of appeals observed that the statute, “as written, ... does not require a blood or breath specimen to be taken contrary to the Fourth Amendment; that is, without a warrant or a recognized exception .to ,.the warrant requirement.” McGruder, 475 S.W.3d at 350. Because the statutory mandate could be carried out consistently with the- dictates of the Fourth Amendment, the court of appeals concluded, it was not unconstitutional on its face. Id. When the court of appeals was considering the merits of this case, it did not have the benefit of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, supra (determining the standard of review for facial constitutionality) or the decision of this Court in State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784, 813 (Tex.Crim.App.2014) (<HOLDING>). We vacate the judgment of the court of
holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant holding that section 724012b3b of the texas transportation code does not by itself form a constitutionally valid alternative to the fourth amendment warrant requirement holding that when acting pursuant to a valid warrant the police did not violate the fourth amendment by acting outside their jurisdiction in violation of state law holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment holding valid conditions for execution of the warrant which are constitutionally satisfactory stated in the affidavit that solicits the warrant and accepted by the issuing magistrate