TX: Counsel’s isolated statements a SW wasn’t obtained for a blood draw was not enough to put state and court on notice that exigency needed to be decided

“Are isolated statements globally asserting that a blood draw was conducted without a warrant enough to apprise the trial court that it must consider whether there were exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless search in a driving while intoxicated case, when the context of the entire record in a motion to suppress refers to a different complaint? We conclude that the answer to this question is ‘no.’ Because this record shows that Kenneth Lee Douds, appellant, failed to preserve his complaint that the search was conducted in the absence of exigent circumstances or some other valid exception to the warrant requirement, we sustain the State’s first ground in its petition for discretionary review that contends that the court of appeals erred by reversing his conviction for misdemeanor DWI. See Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (en banc, op. on reh’g). We accordingly reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment affirming appellant’s conviction.” Douds v. State, 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1060 (Oct. 14, 2015) (dissent).