Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): does not justify a warrant-less blood draw from a driver who refuses to consent... or objects to the blood draw .... Consent to a search must be voluntary."); State v. Wulff, 337 P.3d 575, 581 (Idaho 2014) (same); Byars v. State, 336 P.3d 939, 946 (Nev. 2014) ("The implied consent provision . . . does not allow a driver to withdraw consent, thus a driver's so-called consent cannot be considered voluntary. Accordingly, we conclude that [the implied consent provision] is unconstitutional."); State v. Fierro, 853 N.W.2d 235, 243 (S.D. 2014) (ruling that a Fourth Amendment totality of the circumstances analysis must be performed to determine whether consent to a blood draw taken pursuant to state implied consent law was voluntary); Aviles v. State, 443 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (<HOLDING>). 5 People v. Hyde, 393 P.3d 962, 966 (Colo. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the implied consent law allows law enforcement officers to obtain blood in circumstances in which a warrant or actual consent may otherwise be required (B) holding that the implied consent statutes are irrelevant when the defendant gives actual consent to a blood or breath test (C) holding that implied consent and blood draw statutes are not permissible exceptions to the warrant requirement and stating that to hold otherwise flies in the face of mcneelys repeated mandate that courts must consider the totality of the circumstances of each case (D) recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances (E) holding that independent of the implied consent law the fourth amendment requires an arrestees consent to be voluntary to justify a warrantless blood draw
Output (English): holding that the implied consent statutes are irrelevant when the defendant gives actual consent to a blood or breath test