In Crider v. State, 352 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), a police sergeant executed a search-warrant affidavit on June 7, 2008, stating that he had probable cause to obtain blood from the appellant, whom he had arrested for DWI. 352 S.W.3d at 705-06. The affidavit stated that the sergeant made a traffic stop on June 6, 2008, and that upon making contact with Crider, the sergeant detected a strong odor of alcoholic beverage and noted that Crider's eyes were bloodshot and speech "thick-tongued." Id. at 706. In the affidavit, the officer stated the clues he observed during field sobriety tests, and based on his observations, he believed Crider was driving while intoxicated. Id. Based on the affidavit, the magistrate issued a search warrant at 1:07 a.m. on June 7, 2008. Id. Crider argued in his motion to suppress the blood alcohol evidence that, because the sergeant failed to provide in the affidavit the time that he observed Crider driving while intoxicated, the magistrate could not have determined whether there was probable cause because of the dissipation of alcohol from the blood. Id. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and a jury convicted Crider of DWI. Id. Crider appealed, arguing that the search-warrant affidavit failed to establish "recent" probable cause. Id. at 706-07. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed. The Court explained that Crider was the "bookend" case to State v. Jordan, 342 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), wherein the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the search-warrant affidavit for blood in a DWI case established probable cause even though the affidavit did not explicitly state when the officer stopped the defendant because it was obvious from the context. Crider, 352 S.W.3d at 705.