State v. Ferguson 2025 WL 1514077 (Tn. Crim. App. May 25, 2025): Blood samples used for the testing of alcohol/drug content in instances involving a driver suspected of impaired driving typically are obtained by the actions of an officer (in response to a search warrant or by consent) or by the use of a sample of blood which was earlier drawn by the hospital for medical treatment which was independent of the request of law enforcement.
In either scenario, the State must prove that the sample is from the defendant and has not been tampered with prior to testing as a condition to the introduction of the testing results into evidence at trial. This decision holds that a blood sample which was drawn by the hospital for medical treatment purposes is presumed to be trustworthy because the hospital has a “vested interest” in ensuring that the blood labeled with the name of the patient-defendant belongs to that person. Therefore, it is not necessary for the State to prove that there was no possibility of tampering or making a mistake prior to admissibility of the test results.
State v. Green 697 S.W. 3d 634 (Tenn. 2024) and State v. Jones 2025 WL 502064 (Tn. Crim. App. Feb. 14, 2025): The smell of marijuana/hemp by a trained canine or a trained officer is not per se probable cause to search, but can be considered with other factors, based on the totality of circumstances, to form sufficient probable cause to justify a warrantless search or to support an application for a warrant.
State v. Arora 2024 WL 5200479 (Tn. Crim. App. Dec. 23, 2024): Seizing a person’s blood sample and then testing that sample later are two separate searches which intrude on the privacy of an individual under the Constitution. However, if the taking of the blood sample was pursuant to a search warrant that seeks evidence of an intoxicant within the blood, then also by implication, this includes the chemical testing of the blood sample. Common sense is required. See also TCA 55-10-406 and 408.
State v. Allen 2024 WL 3649783 (Tn. Crim App. Aug. 5, 2024): Following a crash in which another driver was killed, Ms. Allen came under suspicion of impaired driving. She was unintelligible at the scene. After arriving at the hospital, she began to speak to a nurse. A police officer asked Allen for a blood sample, and she said, “yes”. The hospital also drew blood for treatment purposes. The Court held that evidence preponderated against her mental capacity to have given knowing and voluntary consent due to the lengthy period of her incoherence. The “consensual” blood sample was suppressed but the hospital drawn blood sample which was done for purposes of medical care and obtained by a search warrant was admissible in evidence. Allen was convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication.
State v. Kroese 2024 WL 2034366 (Tn. Crim. App. May 7, 2024): Ms. Kroese drove head on into a police car driven by Officer Leguiza who died as a result. Kroese was taken to the hospital before the soon to be investigating Trooper arrived at the scene. As he should have done, the Trooper wrote an affidavit requesting a search warrant for blood drawn by the hospital for treatment purposes. The probable cause supporting the affidavit were the facts of the crash and the conclusion of the Trooper, based upon his training and experience, that the crash likely occurred due to the impairment of Kroese. The Court of Criminal Appeals approved this logic.
