TN: Consent to a search blood is different than consent to a medical procedure

Consent to a search blood is different than consent to a medical procedure. Consent to one is not consent to the other. State v. Evans, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 318 (April 4, 2014):

The Defendant, in asserting that he lacked the ability to give valid consent, relies heavily on the testimony of Dr. Nickloes and Dr. McDowell. We acknowledge that both doctors stated that, based on the medications the Defendant was taking, the Defendant was not able to consent to any type of medical procedure at the approximate time that Sergeant Barrett requested the blood sample. However, consent for law enforcement purposes and medical purposes are based on two entirely different standards. See Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 308 F.3d 380, 395-97 (4th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing consent with regard to the testing of urine for law enforcement purposes versus medical purposes by discerning whether the patients knew that the testing was specifically for law enforcement purposes, given that medical personnel were the ones requesting consent). Accordingly, the Defendant’s attempt to have this Court construe valid consent under the standard used for medical procedures is misguided.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply