TN: GFE to warrantless blood draw doesn’t apply to implied consent

The trial court did not err in suppressing the results of the warrantless blood draw performed on defendant because the State failed to show that the blood was drawn pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, and implied consent was not such an exception, and defendant did not voluntarily consent to the blood draw. He was informed only that it was mandatory in light of his prior DUI convictions and was never informed that refusal to submit would result in the suspension of driver’s license. The good-faith exception did not apply because no officer followed the proper procedure of reading the implied consent form to defendant. State v. Henry, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 845 (Sept. 14, 2017).

2255 petitioner’s IAC Fourth Amendment claim is based on the same argument rejected at trial and on appeal, so it’s denied because the Fourth Amendment wasn’t violated. Smith v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148864 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 14, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.