The warrantless draw of defendant’s blood was justified on the basis of exigent circumstances. The officer acted reasonably by authorizing a warrantless blood draw so as to prevent a delay of over three hours before defendant’s blood could be preserved as evidence of DUI. The officer performed his work as efficiently as he could under the circumstances, and seeking a search warrant for defendant’s blood would have taken considerable additional time, thereby significantly undermining the efficacy of the criminal investigation. State v. Martin, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 365 (May 11, 2017).
Subpoenas to two AUSA’s to testify as adverse character witnesses to a government witness on a motion to suppress are quashed. There are other sources of the information. United States v. Flores, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72926 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2017),* reconsideration denied, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77628 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2017).*