Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Shrinerred2 sentences2015App. Sept. 29, 2000) (relying in part on “the exigent circumstances established by the nature of the evidence in cases involving intoxicated motorists” to justify a warrantless blood draw);4 see also State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538, 545 (Minn. 2008) (“The rapid, natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood creates single-factor exigent circumstances that will justify the police taking a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw from a defendant, provided that the police have probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the criminal vehicular operation.”). 2014App. 2000) (relying in part on “the exigent circumstances established by the nature of the evidence in cases involving intoxicated motorists” to justify a warrantless blood draw);4 see also State v. Shriner, 751 N.W.2d 538, 545 (Minn. 2008) (“The rapid, natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood creates single-factor exigent circumstances that will justify the police taking a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw from a defendant, provided that the police have probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the criminal vehicular operation.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2001State v. Michael A. Janosky, No. M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 ; see generally State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 , 848 P.2d 296, 299 (App.1993); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427 , 531 A.2d 157, 160 (1987); State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 , 973 P.2d 758, 762 (Ct.App.1999); Village of Algonquin v. Ford, 145 Ill.App.3d 19 , 99 Ill.Dec. 148 , 495 N.E.2d 595, 596 (1986)). 2001State v. Michael A. Janosky, No. M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 ; see generally State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 , 848 P.2d 296, 299 (App.1993); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427 , 531 A.2d 157, 160 (1987); State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 , 973 P.2d 758, 762 (Ct.App.1999); Village of Algonquin v. Ford, 145 Ill.App.3d 19 , 99 Ill.Dec. 148 , 495 N.E.2d 595, 596 (1986)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Krantzgreen2 sentences2001State v. Michael A. Janosky, No. M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 ; see generally State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 , 848 P.2d 296, 299 (App.1993); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427 , 531 A.2d 157, 160 (1987); State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 , 973 P.2d 758, 762 (Ct.App.1999); Village of Algonquin v. Ford, 145 Ill.App.3d 19 , 99 Ill.Dec. 148 , 495 N.E.2d 595, 596 (1986)). 2001State v. Michael A. Janosky, No. M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 ; see generally State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 , 848 P.2d 296, 299 (App.1993); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427 , 531 A.2d 157, 160 (1987); State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 , 973 P.2d 758, 762 (Ct.App.1999); Village of Algonquin v. Ford, 145 Ill.App.3d 19 , 99 Ill.Dec. 148 , 495 N.E.2d 595, 596 (1986)). | 2 | 2 |
Village of Algonquin v. Fordgreen2 sentences2001State v. Michael A. Janosky, No. M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 ; see generally State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 , 848 P.2d 296, 299 (App.1993); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427 , 531 A.2d 157, 160 (1987); State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 , 973 P.2d 758, 762 (Ct.App.1999); Village of Algonquin v. Ford, 145 Ill.App.3d 19 , 99 Ill.Dec. 148 , 495 N.E.2d 595, 596 (1986)). 2001State v. Michael A. Janosky, No. M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 ; see generally State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 , 848 P.2d 296, 299 (App.1993); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427 , 531 A.2d 157, 160 (1987); State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 , 973 P.2d 758, 762 (Ct.App.1999); Village of Algonquin v. Ford, 145 Ill.App.3d 19 , 99 Ill.Dec. 148 , 495 N.E.2d 595, 596 (1986)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Nickersongreen2 sentences2001State v. Michael A. Janosky, No. M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 ; see generally State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 , 848 P.2d 296, 299 (App.1993); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427 , 531 A.2d 157, 160 (1987); State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 , 973 P.2d 758, 762 (Ct.App.1999); Village of Algonquin v. Ford, 145 Ill.App.3d 19 , 99 Ill.Dec. 148 , 495 N.E.2d 595, 596 (1986)). 2001State v. Michael A. Janosky, No. M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 ; see generally State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 , 848 P.2d 296, 299 (App.1993); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427 , 531 A.2d 157, 160 (1987); State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 , 973 P.2d 758, 762 (Ct.App.1999); Village of Algonquin v. Ford, 145 Ill.App.3d 19 , 99 Ill.Dec. 148 , 495 N.E.2d 595, 596 (1986)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Humphreysgreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., Humphreys, 70 S.W.3d at 760-61 (“Based upon the fact that evidence of blood alcohol content begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, a compulsory breath or blood test, taken with or without the consent of the donor, falls within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.”); State v. James Stacey Carroll, No. W2001-01464-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 184627 , at *5 (Tenn. Crim. 2016In dicta, the Court of Criminal Appeals, citing Schmerber, noted that, since “evidence of blood alcohol content begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, a compulsory breath or blood test, taken with or without the consent of the donor, falls within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. at 760–61.2 Given the prevailing confusion surrounding Schmerber, the Court of Criminal Appeals’ dicta did 2 The opinion cited State v. Janosky, M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1449367 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 3 |
Missouri v. McNeelygreen2 sentences2017In 2013, the Supreme Court rejected a per se exigency rule for nonconsensual blood tests in suspected DUI cases due to the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream and clarified that exigency “must be determined case by case based on the totality of circumstances.” Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 1556, 1561 (2013); see Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d at 305-06 . 2016The disagreement about the scope of Schmerber as it related to the exigent circumstances exception persisted until three years ago, when the United States Supreme Court addressed whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream creates a “per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment‟s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.” McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1556 . | 1 | 2 |
State of Tennessee v. Corrin Kathleen Reynoldsgreen1 sentence2017In 2013, the Supreme Court rejected a per se exigency rule for nonconsensual blood tests in suspected DUI cases due to the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream and clarified that exigency “must be determined case by case based on the totality of circumstances.” Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 1556, 1561 (2013); see Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d at 305-06 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bowmangreen1 sentence2014App. 2001) (“Based upon the fact that evidence of blood alcohol content begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, a compulsory breath or blood test, taken with or without the consent of the donor, falls within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.”); but see State v. Bowman, 327 S.W.3d 69, 85 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences2011Humphreys, 70 S.W.3d at 760 -61 (citing Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 770 ). 2001State v. Michael A. Janosky, No. M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD (citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 ; see generally State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211 , 848 P.2d 296, 299 (App.1993); State v. Taylor, 12 Conn.App. 427 , 531 A.2d 157, 160 (1987); State v. Nickerson, 132 Idaho 406 , 973 P.2d 758, 762 (Ct.App.1999); Village of Algonquin v. Ford, 145 Ill.App.3d 19 , 99 Ill.Dec. 148 , 495 N.E.2d 595, 596 (1986)). | 3 | 2000–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.