 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Jordan4/30/1999
urth Amendment." Id. at 767.
The Court concluded that blood test evidence is admissible if the test is performed in a reasonable manner and there is some indication that the evidence sought will be found. Id. at 771; see also State v. Greene, 929 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
In State v. Cleo Mason, No. 02C01-9310-CC-00233, 1996 WL 111200 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, March 14, 1996), the late Judge Joe B. Jones wrote for this Court and adopted the Schmerber test, which sets forth four prerequisites to be met before the results of a compelled blood-alcohol test are admissible into evidence. The State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
a) The officer compelling the extraction of blood from the accused has probable cause to believe that the accused committed the offense of aggravated assault or vehicular homicide while under the influences of an intoxicant or drug, and there is a clear indication that evidence of the accused's intoxication will be found if the blood is taken from the accused's body and tested;
b) Exigent circumstances exist to forego the warrant requirement;
c) The test selected by the officer is reasonable and competent for determining blood-alcohol content; and
d) The test is performed in a reasonable manner.
Id. at *7-8 (citations omitted) (citing Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 768-72). In Mason, this Court ruled that on the specific facts of the case, the use of physical force to obtain the defendant's blood was objectively reasonable. Mason, 1996 WL 1112000, at *12. We find the reasoning and analysis of Judge Jones to be sound.
Here, although it is somewhat unclear from the Defendant's brief, it does not appear that the Defendant challenges the method by which his blood sample was taken, nor does he argue that he refused consent for blood tests. Rather, it appears that the Defendant raises a general challenge to the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-10-406(e) and contends that because the statute is unconstitutional, the State should have procured a search warrant before drawing a sample of his blood.
Based upon legal analysis of this issue by both the United States Supreme Court and this Court in previous cases, as summarized herein, we conclude that Tennessee Code Annotated §55-10-406(e) is constitutional. Our case law requires that specific procedures must be followed in obtaining a blood sample from a defendant charged with vehicular homicide and even allows the forcible taking of blood in certain situations. We are unpersuaded to overrule previous holdings by this Court on this issue. Because the Defendant points to no evidence in the record that he refused consent to the blood-alcohol test performed on him the night of the accident or that his blood was drawn in violation of the standards set forth in Mason, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the Defendant's motion to suppress the results of the test.
The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|