TN: Officer’s lack of experience in getting a search warrant is not an “exigency” for a warrantless blood draw

The officer’s lack of experience in getting a search warrant is not an “exigency” for a warrantless blood draw under McNeely. State v. Gardner, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1023 (November 12, 2014) (link not available when posted; go here to look later):

Relative to the trial court’s finding the existence of exigent circumstances based on the deputies having never obtained a search warrant in DUI cases and their lack of experience and knowledge about how to obtain a warrant, warrant forms generally, and where a judge lived at the time of the traffic stop, we conclude that the lack of experience and knowledge does not give rise to sufficient exigent circumstances justifying the failure to obtain a warrant for the Defendant’s blood. The record reflects that neither of the officers at the scene contemplated or discussed obtaining a warrant, and they did not contact police dispatch about the need for a warrant. Although the record shows the officers acted pursuant to approved police policy, a law enforcement officer’s lack of knowledge of the procedures related to obtaining a warrant does not create such an exigency that “the needs of law enforcement [are] so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” See Mincey, 437 U.S. at 394; see also Charles A. Kennedy, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 930, 2014 WL 4953586, at *10 (stating that an officer’s lack of knowledge about “how to apply for a warrant for a blood draw in a DUI case should not … weigh in favor of a finding of exigent circumstances”). In our view, an officer’s lack of knowledge does not dispense with the warrant requirement because to hold otherwise would circumvent the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

The question then becomes whether the record reflects the existence of exigent circumstances, namely whether the dissipation of alcohol in the Defendant’s blood and the additional time required to obtain a warrant created exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search. We note that although the trial court did not explicitly state the dissipation factor in its finding the existence of exigent circumstances, the record clearly shows that the court was concerned about the additional time it would have taken the officers to obtain a warrant. We conclude that the record does not show sufficient exigency to justify the nonconsensual warrantless search and seizure of the Defendant’s blood.