 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Smith7/22/1999
A jury found the defendant guilty of driving under the influence (DUI). The defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. She now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress because the arresting officer stopped her vehicle with neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion. She also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence her blood alcohol test results because the State failed to establish chain of custody and exclude the possibility of tampering. Finding no merit in these arguments, we affirm.
The evidence shows as follows. At the motion to suppress hearing and at trial, Trooper Jimmy Lambert testified that on the evening of September 28, 1997, he parked his patrol car on the side of the road to run stationary radar. A civilian vehicle stopped, and the driver complained that a red Ford Ranger was driving recklessly. He then observed a red Ford Ranger pass, and he pulled onto the road to investigate. According to Trooper Lambert, the red Ford Ranger was moving slowly, approximately fifteen miles per hour under the forty-five miles per hour speed limit. When he observed the Ranger cross the yellow center line and then cross the white fog line, he decided to initiate a stop. He activated his lights, but the Ranger did not stop. After following the Ranger for approximately three-quarters of a mile, Trooper Lambert activated his siren. The Ranger traveled an additional one-half mile before it stopped.
Trooper Lambert identified the defendant as the driver of the Ranger. According to Trooper Lambert, the defendant smelled strongly of an intoxicated beverage and her eyes were watery and red. When asked if she had been drinking, the defendant admitted, "A little bit." Trooper Lambert asked the defendant to exit the vehicle, and when she did, she staggered and had difficulty walking. When the defendant could not perform any roadside sobriety tests, Trooper Lambert arrested her for DUI. Trooper Lambert testified that in his opinion, the defendant was intoxicated.
Trooper Lambert asked the defendant to submit to a blood alcohol test, and the defendant agreed. He transported the defendant to the emergency room of a local hospital to have her blood drawn. He testified that after the sample was drawn, it was given to him and he immediately sealed it and mailed it by U.S. postal mail to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) crime lab in Jackson.
TBI Special Agent Robert Marshall testified he conducted the blood alcohol test in this case, which yielded a result of .22 grams per cent of ethyl alcohol. He testified that when blood samples arrive at the laboratory, they are assigned an identification number and placed in a secure refrigerator. According to Agent Marshall, when he retrieved the blood sample kit in this case from the secure, locked refrigerator, it was sealed with tamper-resistant tape. The vial was labeled with the assigned identification number, the defendant's name, the time and date of collection, and two sets of initials. The paperwork accompanying the vial mirrored much of this information, indicating that the sample was collected by Jane Goodman, M.T., on September 28, 1997, in McNairy County and sent to the laboratory by Trooper Lambert. The paperwork contained no information regarding whether Ms. Goodman was licensed or trained to collect blood samples or the procedure she used to collect the sample in this case. Agent Marshall also testified he did not receive a submission form signed by the defendant indicating that the blood was hers; according to Agent Marshall, it is the trooper's responsibility to complete such paperwork. Agent Marshall acknowledged that wip
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|