TN: Inconvenience in getting a blood draw warrant is not exigency

Defendant was in a single car accident that killed his passenger. When he was in the hospital getting treatment, there was a warrantless blood draw. The state couldn’t rely on the implied consent statute where it relied on exigency at the suppression hearing. The trial court found exigency from lack of convenience at night. There were 11 police officers at the scene, and one of them could have gone for a warrant. Inconvenience is not exigency. “To support a finding of exigent circumstances, the Fourth Amendment demands more.” State v. Cates, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 785 (September 28, 2015).

Pre-recreational marijuana in Colorado in 2011, an officer seeing a marijuana pipe with burned residue in plain view was probable cause there was marijuana in the car. People v. Verigan, 2015 COA 132, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 1515 (September 24, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.