TN: The privilege of driving doesn’t operate as a consent to a blood draw

The privilege of driving doesn’t operate as a consent to a blood draw. The trial court here specifically found no consent, and the record does not preponderate against the finding. There is still no good faith exception in Tennessee. State v. Sprawling, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 480 (July 5, 2016) (concur):

We also conclude that “the privilege of driving does not alone create consent for a forcible blood draw,” and “such a search is not reasonable unless performed pursuant to a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.” James Dean Wells, No. M2013-01145-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 933, 2014 WL 4977356, at *13. The State, in a footnote in its brief, asserts that this case is an appropriate case for application of the so called “good faith exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule as adopted in Federal Courts by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984). We believe that Tennesseans have adjusted well for over three decades under our State’s constitution without adoption of any good faith exception to the protections afforded to persons by the Fourth amendment over 200 years ago and in Art. I § 7 of Tennessee’s Constitution. See State v. Bearden, 326 S.W.3d 184, 188 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). We should not alter Tennessee Law. See State v. Christopher Wilson, No. W2015-00699-CCA-R9-CD, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 302, 2016 WL 1627145 (Tenn. Crim. App. April 21, 2016)(Woodall, P.J., concurring opinion).