I noticed that the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Kenneth Lee Douds v. State recently issued a published opinion holding the mandatory blood draw to be constitutional. This is the first post-McNeely opinion that I am aware of in Texas, and some of the prosecutors in our office are excited about it.

However, in reading the opinion, I'm not that optomistic. Although it holds the statutte constitutional, it does so only under the facts of the case at issue and seems to suggest that mandatory blood draws are only constitutional when you also have some sort of exigency that would make it impractical to obtain a warrant. If my reading is correct, this opinion does nothing to help the situation but merely incorporates an exigent circumstances requirement into the statute.
I would be interested to hear what others think about it.