New Blood Testing case

State of Tennessee v. Shirley Larhonda Gagne E2009-02412-CCA-R3-CD | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

To all the naysayers who doubt the constitutionality of the new forced blood law, read this and weep! This sets out some of the case law concerning blood testing that was used to support arguments in favor of the legislation. A few points:

1) there is no right to refusal;

2) the failure to read the implied consent warning only effects the implied consent case, not the admission of the BAC in the DUI.

3) "If probable cause exists to believe that (a) the motorist has consumed an intoxicant; and (b) testing of the motorist’s blood will reveal evidence of his or her intoxication, law enforcement need not obtain the voluntary consent of the motorist before collecting his or her blood sample. Humphreys, 70 S.W.3d at 761 (citing Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 768-72)."

4) The purpose of the implied consent law was to avoid violent confrontations with motorist. It in no way was established to benefit or give a right to an impaired driver.

5)“[T]o carve out a rule of exclusion where the [refusal] provisions . . . have not been followed” is not the purpose of the Implied Consent statute. Hancock, 1999 WL 298219, *7."