Reference no: EM132254065

Question: 150 AGREE OR DISAGREE

1. Exigent circumstances are circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that making entry is necessary to preserve life, prevent evidence from potentially being destroyed, or other events that would directly and promptly impede on law enforcement efforts (Vaughn, 2001). One example of a exigent circumstance would be if an officer arrives on scene to a possible domestic dispute and hears a person inside the residence screaming for help. Under this circumstance, the officer could make entry without permission or a warrant because of that fact that there was a high possibility that a person was in danger. Another example would be if an officer makes entry into a vehicle or residence because he or she believed that, if they did not take such action, evidence of a crime would be obstructed or destroyed (Hudson, 2011).

2. In the case The State of Texas v. David Villarreal, Officers pulled over and arrested David Villarreal on the charge of driving while intoxicated. Mr. Villarreal was clearly intoxicated and the officers had his blood drawn without consent or a warrant for his blood even though the blood draw was conducted pursuant to the implied-consent and mandatory-blood-draw provisions in the Texas Transportation Code. Villarreal's attorney argued that a recent decision made by the Supreme Court upheld that in the absence of exigent circumstances, a DWI suspect's blood may not be drawn without a warrant, and he further argued that the federal Constitution overrides the Texas statute that authorizes a mandatory blood draw in certain situations. The case then proceeds to talk about whether or not the blood draw statute is constitutional or not, and what circumstances must be available to proceed with the blood draw without consent.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the Fourth Amendment is included in the understanding that a collection of a suspect's blood invades a substantial privacy interest, and that the exigent circumstances exception to the search-warrant requirement is not established merely by the natural dissipation of alcohol. The Court concludes that the Defendant's blood was illegally obtained without a warrant and in the absence of a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, and that the statutory blood draw was invalid and unconstitutional without exigent circumstances to support the absence of a warrant.

3. This case referenced many findings by the U.S. Supreme Court, but did not say whether or not it was appealed to the Supreme Court. It concludes that the defendants blood was obtained illegally since there were no exigent circumstances that would have prevented the officer from obtaining a warrant for the blood like they should have.