TN: No GFE for warrantless blood draw where no exigency at all

In a warrantless blood draw case under McNeely, the state argued for a good faith exception, analogizing the state’s new statutory good faith exception, which the court finds inapplicable. There simply was no exigent circumstance in this case to dispense with a warrant. Here, doing the blood draw without a warrant was convenience, not exigency. State v. Wilson, W2015-00699-CCA-R9-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. April 21, 2016):

We decline to uphold the trial court’s finding of a good faith exception. The State notes that our Supreme Court has accepted a case that involves a similar issue; however, it is not the role of this Court to speculate or guess at what might become the law. Currently, there is not a recognized “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement in the state of Tennessee. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion to suppress.

Even should the Supreme Court ultimately adopt a “good faith” exception, our review of the record did not reveal any evidence that the officer relied on case law for the proposition that dissipation in the blood is an exigent circumstance. The officer testified that it was his “understanding” that he was following “policy.” There was no evidence presented as to whether the policy was based on convenience, financial resources, or the statute itself. As to an exception based on a statute later found unconstitutional, this Court has concluded that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406 does not dispense with the warrant requirement and is constitutional. See State v. Charles A. Kennedy, M2013-02207-CCA-R9-CD, 2014 WL 4953586, (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oct. 13, 2014), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed.