Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in Texas

99 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1982–2026 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (34)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Villarreal, Davidgreen texcrimapp · 2014 · cited in 32 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2016 2 sentences 2016Although the court of criminal appeals subsequently issued an opinion addressing warrantless blood draws and rejecting the argument that the mandatory blood draw and implied consent provisions of the transportation code “form a valid alternative to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement,” see State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784,793 (Tex. Crim. 2016Although the court of criminal appeals subsequently issued an opinion addressing warrantless blood draws and rejecting the argument that the mandatory blood draw and implied consent provisions of the transportation code “form a valid alternative to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement,” see State v. Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d 784,793 (Tex. Crim.	9	32
State v. Guzmangreen texcrimapp · 1998 · cited in 7 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 2006) (“As the Supreme Court stated, a finding of probable cause ‘alone satisfies the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.’”); State v. Guzman, 959 S.W.2d 631, 634 (Tex. Crim. 2011See also State v. Guzman, 959 S.W.2d 631, 634 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (`we hold, as Supreme Court precedent dictates, that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not require the existence of exigent circumstances in addition to probable cause').)." Cf. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , ___, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1723-24 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) ("Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle	7	7
Missouri v. McNeelygreen scotus · 2013 · cited in 9 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015App. Nov. 26, 2014), that “the provisions in the Transportation Code do not, taken by themselves, form a constitutionally valid alternative to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.” The court of criminal appeals explained that “the Supreme Court’s holding in McNeely makes clear that drawing the blood of an individual suspected of DWI falls under the category of cases holding that ‘a warrantless search of a person is reasonable only 1 When the trial court held its hearing on Flores’s second suppression motion, it did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in Weems. -3- 04-13-00754-CR 2015CONCLUSION selves, form a constitutionally valid alternative to Having sustained Bowyer's sole issue, we re- the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. ––– verse the trial court's order denying Bowyer's mo- U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1563 (2013); Villarreal, tion to suppress and the trial court's judgment, and ––– S.W.3d at ––––, 2014 WL 6734178 , at *10–16. we remand this case to the trial court for further Specifically, the court in Villarreal rejected the proceedings consistent with this opinion.	4	9
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 8 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2015 2 sentences 2015Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041 , 2044–45 (1973); Meekins, 340 S.W.3d at 458 . 2015Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041 , 2044–45 (1973); Meekins, 340 S.W.3d at 458 .	4	8
Dixon v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2006 · cited in 8 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2012 2 sentences 2012The existence of such probable cause “alone satisfies the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.” Dixon v. State, 206 S.W.3d 613 , 619 n.25 (Tex. Crim. 2012The existence of such probable cause "alone satisfies the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement." Dixon v. State, 206 S.W.3d 613 , 619 n.25 (Tex. Crim.	4	8
State v. David Villarrealgreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015See e.g., Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 665 (“[T]he United States Supreme Court has rejected any position that would treat section 724.012(b)(3)(B) as an exception to the Fourth Amendment”); State v. Villarreal, No. 13-13-00253-CR, 2014 WL 1257150, at 11 (Tex. App. Jan. 23, 2014) (“[T]he constitutionality of the repeat offender provision of the mandatory blood draw law must be based on the previously recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.”) Aviles v. State, 443 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Tex. App. 2014) (“these statutes clearly create categorical or per se rules the McNeely court h 2014As our sister courts have stated, “[t]he mandatory blood draw statute [section 724.012(b) ] cannot — and does not purport to — alter the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement or its recognized exceptions.” Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 859-60 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist,] 2014, pet. filed) (mem. op.); Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 663-66 ; Sutherland v. State, 436 S.W.3d 28, 38-41 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2014, pet. filed) (mem. op.); Villarreal , — S.W.3d at -, 2014 WL 1257150, at *10-11 , 2014 Tex.App.	4	5
Antonio Aviles v. Stategreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 6 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015See e.g., Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 665 (“[T]he United States Supreme Court has rejected any position that would treat section 724.012(b)(3)(B) as an exception to the Fourth Amendment”); State v. Villarreal, No. 13-13-00253-CR, 2014 WL 1257150, at 11 (Tex. App. Jan. 23, 2014) (“[T]he constitutionality of the repeat offender provision of the mandatory blood draw law must be based on the previously recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.”) Aviles v. State, 443 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Tex. App. 2014) (“these statutes clearly create categorical or per se rules the McNeely court h 2015See Burcie v. State, No. 08-13-00212- CR, 2015 WL 2342876 , at 2 (Tex. App.—El Paso May 14, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Aviles v. State, 443 S.W.3d 291 , 293–94 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. filed) (holding on remand that the transportation code did not create an exception to the warrant requirement); Sutherland v. State, 436 S.W.3d 28, 41 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, pet. filed); Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 , 859–60 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. granted) (“The mandatory blood draw statue cannot—and does not purport to—alter the Fourth Amend	3	6
Antonio Aviles v. Stategreen texapp · 2012 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2018 2 sentences 2018The Fourth Court of Appeals in Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110, 116 (Tex.App.–San Antonio, 2012) found that the Texas Transportation Code §724.012 authorized the officer “to require the mandatory blood draw from Aviles without express consent and without a warrant, given Aviles's two prior DWI convictions.” Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110, 116 (Tex.App.–San Antonio,2012). 2018The Fourth Court of Appeals in Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110, 116 (Tex.App.–San Antonio, 2012) found that the Texas Transportation Code §724.012 authorized the officer “to require the mandatory blood draw from Aviles without express consent and without a warrant, given Aviles's two prior DWI convictions.” Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110, 116 (Tex.App.–San Antonio,2012).	3	3
Walter v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2000 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738-39 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex.Cr.App 2000). 2006See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738-39 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex.Cr.App 2000).	3	3
Texas v. Browngreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738-39 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex.Cr.App 2000). 2006See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738-39 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex.Cr.App 2000).	3	3
Jesse Thomas Sutherland v. Stategreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015See Burcie v. State, No. 08-13-00212- CR, 2015 WL 2342876 , at 2 (Tex. App.—El Paso May 14, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Aviles v. State, 443 S.W.3d 291 , 293–94 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. filed) (holding on remand that the transportation code did not create an exception to the warrant requirement); Sutherland v. State, 436 S.W.3d 28, 41 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, pet. filed); Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 , 859–60 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. granted) (“The mandatory blood draw statue cannot—and does not purport to—alter the Fourth Amend 2014As our sister courts have stated, “[t]he mandatory blood draw statute [section 724.012(b) ] cannot — and does not purport to — alter the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement or its recognized exceptions.” Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 859-60 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist,] 2014, pet. filed) (mem. op.); Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 663-66 ; Sutherland v. State, 436 S.W.3d 28, 38-41 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2014, pet. filed) (mem. op.); Villarreal , — S.W.3d at -, 2014 WL 1257150, at *10-11 , 2014 Tex.App.	2	3
Washington v. Chrismangreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026 2 sentences 2026If they come across some item in plain view and seize it, no invasion of personal privacy has occurred.”); Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 , 5–6 (1982) (“The ‘plain view’ exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a law enforcement officer to seize what clearly - 23 - 04-24-00320-CR is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right to be.”). 2025If they come across some item in plain view and seize it, no invasion of personal privacy has occurred.”); Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 , 5–6 (1982) (“The ‘plain view’ exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a law enforcement officer to seize what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has the right to be.”).	2	2
Hudson v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1979 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015This unprecedented totality-of-the-exceptions approach adds zeros to create one, ignoring that the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement “have been jealously and carefully drawn.” Hudson v. State, 588 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex. Crim. 2014This unprecedented totality-of-the-exceptions approach adds zeros to create one, ignoring that the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement “have been jealously and carefully drawn.” Hudson v. State, 588 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (quoting Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 499 , 78 S.Ct. 1253 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958)).	2	2
Newbold v. United Statesgreen scotus · 2014 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110, 112 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. ref'd), vacated, 134 S. Ct. 902 , 187 L. 2014See Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110, 112 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2012, pet. ref'd), vacated, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 902 , 187 L.Ed.2d 767 (2014), op. on remand, 443 S.W.3d 291 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2014, no pet. h.).	2	2
Lassiter v. City of Phila.green scotus · 2014 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110, 112 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. ref'd), vacated, 134 S. Ct. 902 , 187 L. 2014See Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110, 112 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2012, pet. ref'd), vacated, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 902 , 187 L.Ed.2d 767 (2014), op. on remand, 443 S.W.3d 291 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2014, no pet. h.).	2	2
Daniel James Weems v. Stategreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 5 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2014In Weems v. State, 434 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. granted), we held Texas’s implied consent and mandatory blood draw statutes fail to consider the totality of the circumstances present in each case and create categorical or per se exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement that the United States Supreme Court rejected in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013). 2014As our sister courts have stated, “[t]he mandatory blood draw statute [section 724.012(b) ] cannot — and does not purport to — alter the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement or its recognized exceptions.” Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 859-60 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist,] 2014, pet. filed) (mem. op.); Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 663-66 ; Sutherland v. State, 436 S.W.3d 28, 38-41 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2014, pet. filed) (mem. op.); Villarreal , — S.W.3d at -, 2014 WL 1257150, at **10-11 , 2014 Tex.App.	1	5
Kenneth Lee Douds v. Stategreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015See Burcie v. State, No. 08-13-00212- CR, 2015 WL 2342876 , at 2 (Tex. App.—El Paso May 14, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Aviles v. State, 443 S.W.3d 291 , 293–94 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. filed) (holding on remand that the transportation code did not create an exception to the warrant requirement); Sutherland v. State, 436 S.W.3d 28, 41 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2014, pet. filed); Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 , 859–60 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. granted) (“The mandatory blood draw statue cannot—and does not purport to—alter the Fourth Amend 2014As our sister courts have stated, “[t]he mandatory blood draw statute [section 724.012(b) ] cannot — and does not purport to — alter the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement or its recognized exceptions.” Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 859-60 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist,] 2014, pet. filed) (mem. op.); Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 663-66 ; Sutherland v. State, 436 S.W.3d 28, 38-41 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2014, pet. filed) (mem. op.); Villarreal , — S.W.3d at -, 2014 WL 1257150, at *10-11 , 2014 Tex.App.	1	4
Clayton Dean Reeder v. Stategreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015McNeil, 443 S.W.3d at 299–300; Aviles, 443 S.W.3d at 293–94; Forsyth, 438 S.W.3d at 223 ; Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 859–60; Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 664–65; Reeder, 428 S.W.3d at 928–30; see also Holidy, 2014 WL 1722171 , at 4. 2014*See State v. Anderson, No. 09-13-00400-CR, 2014 WL 5033262 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 8, 2014, no pet. h.); McNeil v. State, No. 04-13- 00415-CR, 2014 WL 3843757 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 2, 2014, pet. filed); McGruder v. State, No. 10-13-00109, 2014 WL 3973089 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 14, 2014, pet. filed); Aviles, 2014 WL 3843756 ; Forsyth v. State, 438 S.W.3d 216 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2014, pet. ref.d); Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. granted); Weems v. State, 434 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. granted); Reeder v. State, 428 S.W.3d 924, 930	1	2
McGruder v. Stategreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See McGruder, — S.W.3d at -, 2014 WL 3973089, at 3-4 , 2014 Tex.App. 2014*See State v. Anderson, No. 09-13-00400-CR, 2014 WL 5033262 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 8, 2014, no pet. h.); McNeil v. State, No. 04-13- 00415-CR, 2014 WL 3843757 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 2, 2014, pet. filed); McGruder v. State, No. 10-13-00109, 2014 WL 3973089 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 14, 2014, pet. filed); Aviles, 2014 WL 3843756 ; Forsyth v. State, 438 S.W.3d 216 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2014, pet. ref.d); Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. granted); Weems v. State, 434 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. granted); Reeder v. State, 428 S.W.3d 924, 930	1	2
Colorado v. Bertinegreen scotus · 1987 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371-72 (1987) (acknowledging inventory searches to be an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement given its purpose and interests involved).	1	1
State v. Rodriguezgreen texcrimapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021See State v. Rodriguez, 521 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim.	1	1
Kentucky v. Kinggreen scotus · 2011 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
McGee v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
Turrubiate v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
Loredana Bertolotti Gore v. Stategreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
Gene Allen Burks v. Stategreen texapp · 2015 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
Walter Tendai Chidyausiku v. Stategreen texapp · 2015 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
State v. Ester Aboytes Andersongreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
Wright v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012	1	1
Arizona v. Gantgreen scotus · 2009 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
Maxwell v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010	1	1
Estrada v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007	1	1
Rheinlander v. Stategreen texapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
Cady v. Dombrowskigreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (27)

Case	Cited	Years
Pennsylvania v. Labron green scotus · 1996 2 sentences 2011As the Supreme Court stated, a finding of probable cause ‘alone satisfies the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.’ Id. 2011As the Supreme Court stated, a finding of probable cause `alone satisfies the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.' Id.	9	2006–2012
Meekins v. State green texcrimapp · 2011 2 sentences 2015Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041 , 2044–45 (1973); Meekins, 340 S.W.3d at 458 . 2015Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S. Ct. 2041 , 2044–45 (1973); Meekins, 340 S.W.3d at 458 .	3	2015–2015
United States v. Ross green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2015Although the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant rejected the previously acceptable “incident to arrest” reason for a warrantless search of a vehicle, the Gant Court nevertheless left intact the exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement set forth in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-821 , 102 S. Ct. 2157 , 72 L. 2015Although the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant rejected the previously acceptable “incident to arrest” reason for a warrantless search of a vehicle, the Gant Court nevertheless left intact the exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement set forth in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-821 , 102 S. Ct. 2157 , 72 L.	3	1982–2015
Roaden v. Kentucky green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 2012Id. at 506 . 2011Id. at 506 .	3	2011–2012
Welsh v. Wisconsin green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2015Nonetheless, the Court stated that an important to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, based on factor in determining whether an exigency exists is “the the gravity of the underlying offense, should apply to the gravity of the underlying offense for which the arrest is being Transportation Code's mandatory provisions of the implied- made.” Id. at 753 , 104 S.Ct. at 2099 . 2015Nonetheless, the Court stated that an important to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, based on factor in determining whether an exigency exists is “the the gravity of the underlying offense, should apply to the gravity of the underlying offense for which the arrest is being Transportation Code's mandatory provisions of the implied- made.” Id. at 753 , 104 S.Ct. at 2099 .	2	2015–2015
Haley Diana Forsyth v. State green texapp · 2014 2 sentences 2015McNeil, 443 S.W.3d at 299–300; Aviles, 443 S.W.3d at 293–94; Forsyth, 438 S.W.3d at 223 ; Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 859–60; Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 664–65; Reeder, 428 S.W.3d at 928–30; see also Holidy, 2014 WL 1722171 , at 4. 2014*See State v. Anderson, No. 09-13-00400-CR, 2014 WL 5033262 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 8, 2014, no pet. h.); McNeil v. State, No. 04-13- 00415-CR, 2014 WL 3843757 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 2, 2014, pet. filed); McGruder v. State, No. 10-13-00109, 2014 WL 3973089 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 14, 2014, pet. filed); Aviles, 2014 WL 3843756 ; Forsyth v. State, 438 S.W.3d 216 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2014, pet. ref.d); Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. granted); Weems v. State, 434 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. granted); Reeder v. State, 428 S.W.3d 924, 930	2	2014–2015
Dave McNeil v. State green texapp · 2014 2 sentences 2015McNeil, 443 S.W.3d at 299–300; Aviles, 443 S.W.3d at 293–94; Forsyth, 438 S.W.3d at 223 ; Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 859–60; Weems, 434 S.W.3d at 664–65; Reeder, 428 S.W.3d at 928–30; see also Holidy, 2014 WL 1722171 , at 4. 2014*See State v. Anderson, No. 09-13-00400-CR, 2014 WL 5033262 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 8, 2014, no pet. h.); McNeil v. State, No. 04-13- 00415-CR, 2014 WL 3843757 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 2, 2014, pet. filed); McGruder v. State, No. 10-13-00109, 2014 WL 3973089 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 14, 2014, pet. filed); Aviles, 2014 WL 3843756 ; Forsyth v. State, 438 S.W.3d 216 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2014, pet. ref.d); Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. granted); Weems v. State, 434 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. granted); Reeder v. State, 428 S.W.3d 924, 930	2	2014–2015
Riley v. Cal. United States green · 2014 2 sentences 2015App. 4 Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) . 5 Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) . 6 McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1566 . 7 Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984). 2015Riley, 134 S. Ct. at 2482 .	2	2015–2015
Payton v. New York green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2006In any event, it was not Article 14.05 that the court of appeals held was violated in this case, but Article 14.03(a)(1). 21 .In Payton , the Supreme Court implicitly recognized these exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for any entry into the home when, before reaching the merits of that question, it carefully explained why neither "exigent circumstances” nor "consent” was a viable issue on the facts of that case. 445 U.S. at 582-83 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 . 2006In any event, it was not Article 14.05 that the court of appeals held was violated in this case, but Article 14.03(a)(1). 21 .In Payton , the Supreme Court implicitly recognized these exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for any entry into the home when, before reaching the merits of that question, it carefully explained why neither "exigent circumstances” nor "consent” was a viable issue on the facts of that case. 445 U.S. at 582-83 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 .	2	2006–2006
Pitonyak v. State green texapp · 2008	1	2019–2019
Ford, Jon Thomas green texcrimapp · 2015	1	2016–2016
Amador v. State green texcrimapp · 2007	1	2015–2015
Wyoming v. Houghton green scotus · 1999	1	2015–2015
State v. Miller green texapp · 2003	1	2015–2015
Aliff v. State green texcrimapp · 1982	1	2015–2015
Jones v. United States green scotus · 1958	1	2014–2014
Illinois v. Caballes green scotus · 2005	1	2011–2011
State v. Dobbs green texcrimapp · 2010	1	2011–2011
Curry v. State green texapp · 2007	1	2008–2008
Gutierrez v. State green texcrimapp · 2007	1	2007–2007
Coolidge v. New Hampshire green scotus · 1971	1	2006–2006
Rheinlander v. State green texcrimapp · 1996	1	2001–2001
New York v. Burger green scotus · 1987	1	1992–1992
Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property green scotus · 1961	1	1990–1990
New York v. P. J. Video, Inc. green scotus · 1986	1	1990–1990
Carroll v. United States green scotus · 1925	1	1987–1987
Coyne v. State green texcrimapp · 1972	1	1987–1987

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Transp. Code § 724.012 (37) TX § Tex. Transp. Code § 724.011 (21) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 49.04 (14) TX § Tex. Transp. Code § 724.013 (9) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 19.02 (6) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 1.07 (5) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 49.01 (5) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 49.045 (5) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 12.42 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 19.03 (4) TX § Tex. Fam. Code § 261.303 (3) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 22.011 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 276 (1976–2025) TX 99 (1982–2026) ID 33 (1982–2026) TN 27 (1981–2026) MO 24 (1970–2025) CA 24 (1974–2024) WA 22 (1975–2022) PA 19 (1973–2025) VA 19 (1982–2026) IN 18 (1981–2025) MD 16 (1984–2022) IL 16 (1979–2025) WI 15 (1993–2024) NJ 13 (1978–2024) FL 12 (1979–2025) MI 11 (1974–2024) NY 10 (1980–2021) MS 10 (1981–2015) IA 10 (1978–2021) MN 9 (1986–2025) AZ 8 (1978–2026) DC 8 (1981–2025) AL 7 (1979–1994) OR 7 (1982–2016) UT 7 (1985–2024) CO 6 (1983–2024) SC 6 (1980–2020) OK 5 (1990–2016) ND 4 (2008–2017) NC 4 (2015–2018) WY 4 (1983–2001) SD 4 (1978–2014) MA 4 (1982–1999) CT 4 (1980–2017) KS 3 (2020–2024) HI 3 (1981–2015) RI 3 (1978–2014) NV 3 (1981–2022) MT 3 (1982–2021) NM 2 (1994–2004) ME 2 (2009–2010) LA 2 (1986–1987) WV 2 (1989–2023)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check