SHOULD THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN MISSOURI V McNEELY, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO STATE CASES WHERE WITHOUT A WARRANT, AND WITHOUT EFFECTIVE CONSENT, A PERSONS BLOOD WAS STILL EXTRACTED?

WITH OR WITHOUT THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN MISSOURI V McNEELY, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), IS IT STILL AN ILLEGAL ACT AND A VIOLATION OF A PERSONS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WHEN WITHOUT A WARRANT AND DEVOID OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, A PERSONS BLOOD IS DRAWN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT?

DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AS WELL AS THE TEXAS COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE STATED THAT A WARRANT WAS ALWAYS REQUIRED UNDER THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED, SHOULD PETITIONER'S CONVICTION BE RENDERED VOID BASED ON BOTH A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION AS WELL AS A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION?

Should this court's holding in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), be applied retroactively to state cases?