2015 with a new opinion. State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784, 817 (Tex. Crim.App.2015). 9 . The statute, by its own terms, does not address whether a warrant is required before a mandatory blood draw is taken; it simply requires that the blood be drawn. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d at 811; see Tercero, 467 S.W.3d at 11. 10 . The State argues that Villarreal improperly rejected the balancing test because the United States Supreme Court has applied the balancing test without considering a special exception to the warrant requirement in Riley v. California, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014). But Riley dealt with "the reasonableness of a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest” — the third exception recognized in Villarreal. Id. at 2482; see Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d at 796 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the search fell within a recognized
recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances recognizing the searchincidenttoarrest exception to the warrant requirement recognizing exception recognizing exigent circumstance exception to warrant requirement recognizing the  community caretaker or public safety1 doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement