State v. Kroese
It is rare to read an appellate opinion in a criminal case and come away with the feeling that everybody who touched the case from the time of the unfortunate operative event through the writing of the appellate decision gave it their best effort. However, the opinion in State v. Ashley Bianca Ruth Kroese, 2024 WL 2034366 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 7, 2024) leaves that impression. The opinion reads as a tutorial for the those who handle impaired driving cases, particularly the most unfortunate sort which result in death and a prosecution for vehicular homicide.

The case grew out of a two-car head on collision which occurred on June 18, 2020, at 4:56am in Williamson County. Ms. Kroese was the driver and sole occupant of a Jeep. She had been drinking liquor, wine and beer at three locations extending from the evening of June 17 until the morning hours of June 18. Some lay witnesses who observed her before the crash testified that she did not appear to be intoxicated but others showed a contrary concern for her ability to drive. Traffic camera footage showed that for at least 0.3 mile before the impact, Ms. Kroese drove without her headlights on and in the opposing lane of traffic until crashing into a Brentwood Police Department patrol car being operated by Officer Dustin Leguiza. Officer Leguiza did not survive the forceful impact.

Ms. Kroese was extricated from her Jeep and was transported to Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in Davidson County. A blood specimen was taken from her at VUMC for purposes of medical treatment. This specimen was tested and then delivered to a THP Trooper by VUMC staff in response to the request of the Trooper who had arrived with a search warrant for the same. It does not appear that an additional blood sample was taken from Ms. Kroese in response to the search warrant. The Trooper hand delivered the blood to the TBI forensic lab where the blood was tested and was found to contain 0.166% alcohol.

The Trooper who worked the crash had special training in the Tennessee ARIDE Program. He also had extensive experience in obtaining blood draws via a search warrant in impaired driving cases and particular experience in working with VUMC to do so. The Trooper applied for and was granted a search warrant from a Davidson County magistrate upon a statement of facts that provided probable cause to reasonably conclude that evidence of impairment due to the presence of drugs or alcohol might be found within the blood of Ms. Kroese upon toxicological exam. The search warrant was issued for “all blood” of Ms. Kroese at VUMC. The warrant was not served on her because she was in surgery at the time of service but rather was served on a hospital lab technician. The VUMC legal department reviewed the search warrant and approved the release of the blood samples to the Trooper who then transported the samples to the TBI lab that day.

The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals contains a very detailed explanation of the steps taken by VUMC, the Troopers and the TBI lab to create, maintain and verify the authenticity of the blood sample and the chain of custody. Defense counsel ably contested the legal grounds for the issuance of the search warrant and the chain of custody of the blood samples. The prosecutors took these challenges seriously and were well prepared for the conduct of the suppression hearings before the trial judge.

Following the two evidentiary hearings on the suppression motion(s), the trial judge issued two written orders which made clear findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying the motions.

The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a conviction for vehicular homicide. On appeal, Ms. Kroese did not contest the sufficiency of the convicting evidence beyond attacking the evidence of the blood testing and the rulings of the trial judge regarding the suppression matters.

Judge Ayers, writing for the unanimous panel, penned a thirty-page opinion which showed that the intermediate court conducted a careful review of the record and a legal analysis. The Court found that:

• The search of Kroese’s blood was presumptively reasonable per the search warrant
• The affidavit supporting the warrant provided probable cause of impaired driving
• Great deference is due to the issuing magistrate on the matter of probable cause
• The findings of the trial judge are entitled to be upheld unless the evidence preponderates against them
• Using a totality of circumstances/commonsense test the search warrant affidavit provided the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding that the blood of Ms. Kroese would contain evidence of vehicular homicide by intoxication/impairment
• Certain driving behaviors, like driving in the wrong lane, are sound indicia of impaired driving which may support a finding of probable cause to issue a search warrant for blood
• While probable cause to believe that a person has driven impaired, necessary to support the issuance of a search warrant for blood, may require more than the mere assertion of a crash-other indicia of intoxication should be considered by the magistrate also-the fact of driving at night without lights on and in driving in the wrong lane of traffic support a finding of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant for a blood sample
• The service of the search warrant on the hospital staff and the retrieval of the blood sample(s) from the hospital rather than Ms. Kroese personally was appropriate
• The chain of custody of blood samples may be proven when the circumstances show that the evidence reasonably establishes identity and integrity-not beyond all possibility of doubt
• Decisions by trial judges are reviewed in these matters on an abuse of discretion basis.

Every trial judge who hears impaired driving cases should read the full decision in State v. Kroese and include a copy of the decision in her/his bench book and research file.