Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408 (2026)
Tests for alcohol or drug content of blood - Procurement and processing of samples - Results - Additional testing
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) The procurement of a sample of a person's blood for the purpose of conducting a test to determine the alcohol content, drug content, or both, of the blood shall be considered valid if the sample was collected by a person qualified to do so, as listed in § 55-10-406(e)(2), or a person acting at the direction of a medical examiner or other physician holding an unlimited license to practice medicine in Tennessee under procedures established by the department of health. If the sample of a person's blood was procured pursuant to § 55-10-406, then the limited testing of the blood sample for the alcohol content, drug content, or both shall be considered a reasonable search for all evidentiary purposes and shall be allowed into evidence without further need of a search warrant or court order.
- (b)
- (1) Upon receipt of a specimen forwarded to the director's office or an accredited crime laboratory for analysis, and the "toxicology request for examination" form, which shall indicate whether or not a breath alcohol test has been administered and the results of that test, the director of the Tennessee bureau of investigation or the director of an accredited crime laboratory shall have the specimen examined for alcohol concentration, the presence of narcotics or other drugs, or for both alcohol and drugs, if requested by the arresting officer, county medical examiner, or any district attorney general. The office of the director of the Tennessee bureau of investigation or the director of an accredited crime laboratory shall execute a certificate or report that indicates the name of the accused, the date, the time, and by whom the specimen was received and examined, and a statement of the alcohol concentration or presence of drugs in the specimen.
- (2) As used in this section, "accredited crime laboratory" shall be limited to those crime laboratories that:
- (A) Are owned and operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state;
- (B) Are accredited under ISO/IEC/17025, with associated supplemental requirements; and
- (C) Provide testing within the scope of the accreditation sufficient to meet the requirements as forensic service providers.
- (c) When a specimen taken in accordance with this section is forwarded for testing to the office of the director of the Tennessee bureau of investigation, a report of the results of this test shall be made and filed in that office, and a copy mailed to the district attorney general for the district where the case arose.
- (d) The certificate provided for in this section shall, when duly attested by the director of the Tennessee bureau of investigation or the director's duly appointed representative, be admissible in any court, in any criminal proceeding, as evidence of the facts therein stated, and of the results of the test, if the person taking or causing to be taken the specimen and the person performing the test of the specimen shall be available, if subpoenaed as witnesses, upon demand by either party to the cause, or, when unable to appear as witnesses, shall submit a deposition upon demand by either party to the cause.
- (e) The person tested shall be entitled to have an additional sample of blood or urine procured and the resulting test performed by any medical laboratory of that person's own choosing and at that person's own expense; provided, that the medical laboratory is licensed pursuant to title 68, chapter 29.
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 892,s 5, eff. 5/1/2024.
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 187, s 11, eff. 7/1/2019.
Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 961, s 1, eff. 7/1/2018.
Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 304, s 4, eff. 7/1/2017.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 154, s 8, eff. 7/1/2013.
Acts 1969, ch. 292, § 4; 1970, ch. 427, § 5; T.C.A., § 59-1047; Acts 1994, ch. 946, § 1; 1995, ch. 517, § 1; 1996, ch. 915, §§ 2, 3; 2002, ch. 855, § 9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 92
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). “Additionally, we hold that the criminal presumption of intoxication established by T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b) (1988) is admissible evidence in a civil case.”
State v. Robinson, 29 S.W.3d 476 (Tenn. 2000). “On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408 (b) violated the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Conway, 77 S.W.3d 213 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “Burden of Proof The defendant alleges that the re-buttable inference of impaired driving in Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-408, triggered by a breathalyzer result of .”
State v. Edison, 9 S.W.3d 75 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-408(b) (1993)(currently codified at Tenn.”
Brown v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 861 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “The defendant asserted that T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b) creates a presumption that a person operating a motor vehicle with greater than a 0.”
State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). “T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b). The State must establish the competency of the operator, the proper operation of the machine and that the testing procedures are properly followed.”
State v. Rogers, 188 S.W.3d 593 (Tenn. 2006). “For the purposes of this section, "intoxication" includes alcohol intoxication as defined by § 55-10-408, drug intoxication, or both. Tenn.”
State v. McKnight, 51 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2001). “This statute, now codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-408 (1997), provides in pertinent part: (p)(l) An offender sentenced to a period of incarceration for [DUI] shall be required to commence service of such sentence within thirty (30) days of conviction or, if space is not…”
State v. Travis, 622 S.W.2d 529 (Tenn. 1981). “However, under § 55-10-408(a), a content of .05% or less shall create no presumption.”
Mansfield v. Colonial Freight Sys., 862 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “These specific findings are sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Colonial Freight Systems was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on its contributory negligence defense.”
State v. Johnson, 717 S.W.2d 298 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). “TCA § 55-10-408(b). By driving a motor vehicle in this state, the driver gives “implied consent” to “a test” to determine the alcoholic or drug content of his blood.”
State v. Norris, 874 S.W.2d 590 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). “The trial judge did not instruct *600 the jury as to inferences in T.C.A. § 55-10-408. 8 The appellant concedes in his brief that this alleged error was not “called to the trial judge’s attention at trial or contained in the motion for new trial and normally [this issue] would…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(1): 1 case
State v. Whaley, 982 S.W.2d 346 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(a): 18 cases
State v. Conway, 77 S.W.3d 213 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “Burden of Proof The defendant alleges that the re-buttable inference of impaired driving in Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-408, triggered by a breathalyzer result of .”
State v. Edison, 9 S.W.3d 75 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-408(b) (1993)(currently codified at Tenn.”
State v. Robinson, 29 S.W.3d 476 (Tenn. 2000). “On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408 (b) violated the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Travis, 622 S.W.2d 529 (Tenn. 1981). “However, under § 55-10-408(a), a content of .05% or less shall create no presumption.”
Daniel Bills v. Conseco Ins. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(a)(l): 1 case
State v. Tait, 114 S.W.3d 518 (Tenn. 2003).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(b): 29 cases
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). “Additionally, we hold that the criminal presumption of intoxication established by T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b) (1988) is admissible evidence in a civil case.”
State v. Robinson, 29 S.W.3d 476 (Tenn. 2000). “On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408 (b) violated the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions.”
Brown v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 861 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “The defendant asserted that T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b) creates a presumption that a person operating a motor vehicle with greater than a 0.”
State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). “T.C.A. § 55-10-408(b). The State must establish the competency of the operator, the proper operation of the machine and that the testing procedures are properly followed.”
State v. Edison, 9 S.W.3d 75 (Tenn. 1999). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-10-408(b) (1993)(currently codified at Tenn.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(d): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Christopher C. Solomon (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-408(e): 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Tedd A. Tjornhom (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017).
State of Tennessee v. John Palladin Gibson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.