In Fienen v. State, 390 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), the court of criminal appeals held that extra-statutory warnings are not inherently coercive but that any coercive effect of warnings should be determined by considering the totality of the circumstances in each particular case, holding,". . . No statement--whether it refers to the consequences of refusing a breath test, the consequences of passing or failing a breath test, or otherwise--should be analyzed in isolation because its impact can only be understood when the surrounding circumstances are accounted for. . . . . . . . Although the officer conveyed what would happen in more definite terms than suggested by the (present) statute, she provided only the most basic information and did not linger or prolong the exchange by explaining in detail the intricacies of obtaining the search warrant (e.g., that the blood search warrant must be approved by a neutral and impartial magistrate and that the judge may sign the search warrant only if he believes that it is supported by probable cause). 390 S.W.3d at 335-36 (holding that under the totality of circumstances, the statements made by the officer were not coercive, "and if anything, Appellant had greater information on which to base his decision.").