 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Conner12/5/2005
FACTS
On June 1, 2004, the defendant was indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury for driving while under the influence of a drug and/or intoxicant, driving while having an alcohol concentration of .08% or greater, reckless driving, and violation of the open container law. These charges stemmed from a single-car accident the defendant was involved in on February 24, 2004, in Jackson, Tennessee. The facts of the accident, as taken from the Jackson Police Department's accident report, are as follows:
Vehicle #1 w involved in a single car accident where the [defendant] lost control of the vehicle, left the roadway, and struck a tree.
Upon officer's arrival, the [defendant] was unresponsive, she was attended to by Jackson Madison Co EMTs. She was transported to Jackson General Hospital where she was treated for her injuries. They (the injuries) were not life threatening, but she was expected to be admitted.
Indications at the scene pointed towards alcohol being a contributing factor. There were two empty Bud Light containers in the vehicle and beer or other alcoholic beverage had been spilled in the front seat. Due to the extent of [the defendant's] injuries, consent for a BAC could not be obtained. She was expected to be charged with DUI.
At the hospital, a blood-alcohol test was performed on the defendant. On April 8, 2004, the City Court of Jackson entered an order for release of the defendant's medical records to the Jackson Police Department for "the sole purpose of investigating the alcohol related car accident involving" the defendant.
On September 8, 2004, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood-alcohol test results, arguing her medical "records were obtained in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 55-10-406 in that her consent was not obtained, nor was there any finding that probable cause existed to authorize the issuance of an order releasing medical records." At the suppression hearing, the defendant argued that her blood- alcohol test should be suppressed because the court order allowing the police department to obtain her medical records from the hospital contained "no mention of any finding of probable cause to support the issuance" of the order. On September 30, 2004, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the State "did properly obtain [the defendant's] medical records and that probable cause did exist for the State of Tennessee to review the records."
On January 31, 2005, the defendant pled guilty to DUI and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all but forty-eight hours suspended. The remaining charges were dismissed. The DUI judgment contains the following notation:
Def reserves the right to certify the following issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress the results of a certain blood test taken without her consent and pursuant to medical treatment, because same was taken without notice or probable cause and therefore constituted an illegal search and seizure.
ANALYSIS
Certified Question of Law
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence because the blood test results were obtained without probable cause and, therefore, constituted an illegal search and seizure. The State responds by arguing that this court has no jurisdiction to consider the suppression issue because the defendant failed to properly preserve a certified question of law for appeal. We agree with the State.
Rule 37 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that an appeal lies from an
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|