IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER WILSON

Interlocutory Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 1400109 W. Mark Ward, Judge

No. W2015-00699-CCA-R9-CD - Filed April 21, 2016

_____________________________

The Defendant, Christopher Wilson, filed a Rule 9 interlocutory appeal seeking our 

review of the trial court‟s denial of his motion to suppress evidence against him. The 

Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test based upon a 

violation of Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). The trial court conducted an 

evidentiary hearing and found that a “good faith exception” to the Defendant‟s forced 

blood draw existed and denied the Defendant‟s motion. The Defendant filed an

application for an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the 

Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant‟s motion to 

suppress based upon a “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule. After a thorough 

review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the trial court erred

when it denied the Defendant‟s motion to suppress. As such, we reverse the trial court's 

judgment and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Tenn. R. App. P. 9 Interlocutory Appeal; Judgment of the Criminal Court Reversed 

and Remanded

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALAN E.

GLENN,J., joined. THOMAS T. WOODALL, P.J., filed a concurring opinion.

Graham Cox, Collierville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Christopher Wilson.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis, Senior Counsel;

Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Michael R. McCusker, Assistant District 

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. Facts
2

This case arises from a traffic stop in Collierville, Tennessee. After observing a 

traffic violation, Collierville Police Lieutenant John Banks conducted a traffic stop 

resulting in the Defendant‟s arrest for driving while under the influence. A search of the 

Defendant‟s vehicle incident to his arrest revealed marijuana and marijuana cigarettes. 

The Defendant refused to consent to a breath or blood test and the police officer ordered 

blood to be drawn despite the refusal. As a result of this stop, a Shelby County grand 

jury indicted the Defendant for possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, possession 

of marijuana with the intent to deliver, driving while under the influence of an intoxicant, 

driving while blood alcohol concentration was more than .08%, driving while under the 

influence of marijuana, driving while under the influence of an intoxicant and marijuana 

combined, and reckless driving. The indictments also reflected that the Defendant had 

two prior convictions for driving while under the influence on March 11, 2008, and 

January 24, 1995.

The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of the blood alcohol 

concentration (BAC) test. The Defendant, relying on Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 

1552 (2013), asserted that the forced blood draw taken absent a warrant, valid consent, or 

exigent circumstances violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search 

and seizure. The State responded that the warrantless blood draw was justified by 

exigent circumstances and by the implied consent statute. The State later amended its 

response contending that the “Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule” should 

apply in this case. 

At the suppression hearing on the Defendant‟s motion, the parties presented the 

following evidence: John Banks, a Collierville Police Department lieutenant, testified 

that, on June 17, 2012, at around 6:39 p.m., he observed the Defendant driving a white 

Ford pickup traveling westbound on Maynard Way. Lieutenant Banks stated that he 

knew the Defendant from a prior DUI arrest and, also, the two men had previously

worked together at an electrical company. Lieutenant Banks recalled that he was directly 

behind the Defendant‟s vehicle, which was stopped at a traffic signal. Lieutenant Banks 

testified that the Defendant made a wide right turn from the right hand traffic lane on 

Maynard Way into the left hand northbound traffic lane of Byhalia Road in violation of 

Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-140. Lieutenant Banks conducted a traffic stop 

of the Defendant based upon this alleged violation.

Lieutenant Banks testified that he approached the vehicle and noticed a “very 

strong” odor of intoxicant on the Defendant‟s breath and coming from inside the vehicle. 

Lieutenant Banks said that the Defendant‟s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. He noticed 

that the Defendant mumbled when he spoke, unlike his normal speech. Based upon his 

observations, Lieutenant Banks believed the Defendant was under the influence of an 

intoxicant and further investigation was necessary. Following the standardized field 
3

sobriety testing, the Defendant was placed under arrest for DUI, and Lieutenant Banks 

searched the Defendant‟s vehicle incident to the arrest. 

Lieutenant Banks testified that, during the search of the vehicle, he found a cooler 

on the front passenger floor board with five sixteen-ounce cans of Bud-Light beer and 

sixteen twelve-ounce bottles of Bud-Light beer. Behind the driver‟s seat, on the 

floorboard, was an unopened eighteen-pack of Bud-Light beer. Lieutenant Banks stated 

that he did not find any open containers of alcohol while searching the vehicle. While 

inside the vehicle, Lieutenant Banks detected an odor of marijuana, and he found in the 

center console a clear plastic bag containing “loose, green-leafy material.” The material 

tested positive for THC. The weight of the marijuana was 28.7 grams. Along with the 

plastic bag of marijuana, Lieutenant Banks found a 1.1 gram unburned marijuana 

cigarette and a .2 gram partially burned marijuana cigarette, which both tested positive 

for THC.

Lieutenant Banks testified that, at the time of the arrest, he was concerned with the 

dissipation of alcohol and marijuana in the Defendant‟s system. Lieutenant Banks 

advised the Defendant of the implied consent law in relation to taking a blood or a breath 

test. The Defendant refused to consent to either a blood draw or breath test. The 

Defendant signed the implied consent form indicating his refusal at 7:39 p.m. Lieutenant 

Banks identified an alcohol toxicology request that he filled out during the Defendant‟s

arrest on June 17, 2012. The form indicated that the Defendant‟s blood was drawn at 

7:45 p.m., one hour and six minutes after the initial traffic stop. Lieutenant Banks 

explained that it was his “understanding” that the “policy” was to collect a mandatory 

blood draw because of the Defendant‟s March 11, 2008 DUI conviction. Lieutenant 

Banks said that it was not “common practice” for officers to obtain search warrants in the 

case of a mandatory blood draw and that he had never done so personally. 

Lieutenant Banks testified that seeking a search warrant in this case would have 

caused an additional delay in obtaining the Defendant‟s blood and, therefore, a less 

accurate test result as to the Defendant‟s blood alcohol level. He estimated that the 

additional thirty to forty-five minutes would have caused him to “lose” evidence. 

Lieutenant Banks said that Collierville does not have a “twenty-four hour Magistrate.” 

Officers must seek the “actual Judge” and, because the Defendant‟s traffic stop and arrest 

occurred on a Sunday afternoon, Lieutenant Banks would have had to first locate the 

judge. 

On cross-examination Lieutenant Banks testified that he drew the Defendant‟s 

blood because of his reliance on statutes relating to second offense drivers. He added that 

he was also concerned with the dissipation of the alcohol in the blood. He agreed that his 

concern over the dissipation of alcohol was not included in any of his reports but stated 
4

that “it is always a concern on any DUI arrest.” He confirmed that he did not attempt to 

get a warrant. 

Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order denying the Defendant‟s 

motion to suppress because “the officer was clearly acting under a good faith belief that 

he was abiding by the law and not violating any rights of the defendant.” It is from this 

judgment that the Defendant appeals.

II. Analysis

The Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress 

because there was no search warrant, exigent circumstances, or consent to the blood 

draw. The Defendant further contends that the police officer‟s misunderstanding of the 

law did not justify the forced blood draw. The State concedes that the trial court 

improperly relied on a “good faith exception” but asks this Court to defer ruling pending 

the Tennessee Supreme Court‟s ruling in State v. Corrin Kathleen Reynolds, No. E2013-

02309-CCA-R9-CD, 2014 WL 5840567 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Nov. 14, 

2014), perm. app. granted (Tenn. March 16, 2015).

1

Our standard of review for a trial court‟s findings of fact and conclusions of law 

on a motion to suppress evidence is set forth in State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 

1996). Under this standard, “a trial court‟s findings of fact in a suppression hearing will 

be upheld unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” Id. at 23. As is customary, “the 

prevailing party in the trial court is afforded the „strongest legitimate view of the 

evidence and all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that 

evidence.‟” State v. Carter, 16 S.W.3d 762, 765 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Keith, 

978 S.W.2d 861, 864 (Tenn. 1998)). Nevertheless, this Court reviews de novo the trial 

court‟s application of the law to the facts, without according any presumption of 

correctness to those conclusions. See State v. Walton, 41 S.W.3d 75, 81 (Tenn. 2001); 

 

1

In Reynolds, the trial court suppressed the results of a blood draw because the State 

failed to prove the Defendant “intelligently” gave consent for a blood draw. After reviewing the 

evidence, this Court held that “the officer had probable cause „to believe that [Defendant,] the 

driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the injury or death of another . . . 

committed [DUI]‟ and because Defendant never refused to submit to the blood draw, the results 

of the blood test are admissible.” Our Court also noted that, “While this Court is without 

authority to adopt the good-faith exception, we would be remiss if we did not take this 

opportunity to note that, aside from authority of the implied consent statute justifying the 

outcome of this case, we believe that the facts and posture of this case, in particular, seem to fit 

squarely within the limited exceptions to the application of the exclusionary rule set forth in both 

Davis and Krull.” Id at *16. The Tennessee Supreme Court accepted the application to appeal 

and oral argument was heard on September 30, 2015.
5

State v. Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d 295, 299 (Tenn. 1999). The trial court, as the trier of fact, 

is able to assess the credibility of the witnesses, determine the weight and value to be 

afforded the evidence, and resolve any conflicts in the evidence. Odom, 928 S.W.2d at 

23. In reviewing a trial court‟s ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court may 

consider the evidence presented both at the suppression hearing and at the subsequent 

trial. State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 299 (Tenn. 1998).

Both the United States and Tennessee Constitution protect against unreasonable 

searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution proclaims that 

“the right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall 

not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” The Tennessee 

Constitution provides “people shall be secure in their persons, houses, and papers and 

possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Tenn. Const. art. I, § 7. 

Generally, to search a person‟s property, a warrant is needed, and “evidence discovered 

as a result thereof is subject to suppression unless the State demonstrates that the search 

or seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the 

warrant requirement.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997). A trial 

court accordingly presumes that a warrantless search or seizure is unreasonable unless the 

State demonstrates that one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies to the 

search. Id.

The Defendant‟s blood was taken pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 

55-10-406 (5)(B) (2014), it provides in pertinent part that:

If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of 

a motor vehicle has committed [vehicular homicide], [aggravated vehicular 

homicide] or [the offense of driving under the influence], and has a prior 

conviction of [vehicular homicide], [aggravated vehicular homicide] or 

[driving under the influence], the officer shall cause the driver to be tested 

for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the driver‟s 

blood. The test shall be performed in accordance with the procedure set 

forth in this section and shall be performed regardless of whether the driver 

does or does not consent to the test.

“[T]he physical intrusion occasioned by a blood draw „infringes an expectation of 

privacy,” and the chemical analysis of blood is also an invasion of an individual‟s privacy 

interests. State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 616 (Tenn. 2006) (quoting Skinner v.

Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616 (1989)). “Such an invasion of bodily 

integrity implicates an individual‟s „most personal and deep-rooted expectations of 

privacy.” Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 1558 (2013) (quoting Winston v. Lee, 

470 U.S. 753, 760 (1985)). Accordingly, the blood of the accused cannot be drawn or 
6

analyzed unless the search is a reasonable one under the Fourth Amendment. 

Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d at 616; see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 (1966). 

A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable, and “evidence discovered as a result 

thereof is subject to suppression unless the State demonstrates that the search or seizure 

was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant 

requirement.” Yeargan, 958 S .W.2d at 629. One such exception is a search conducted 

under exigent circumstances to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. Talley, 

307 S.W.3d at 729. Another is consent. Id.

It is uncontested that the Defendant did not give consent for the blood draw and 

both parties agree that exigent circumstances did not exist to justify the blood draw. The 

trial court also explicitly found that exigent circumstances did not exist. The trial court 

then went on to consider federal law regarding a good faith exception to the warrant 

requirement.

In the landmark case of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.

Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), the United States Supreme Court created 

what is known as the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule and 

permitted evidence to be introduced if it was seized in reasonable, good 

faith reliance upon a search warrant subsequently found to be defective. In 

Illinois v. Krull,480 U.S. 340, 107 S. Ct. 1160, 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), the 

United States Supreme Court applied the “good faith” exception to actions 

of the police conducted pursuant to a presumptively valid statute that is 

later declared unconstitutional. Likewise, in Davis v. United States, 131 S.

Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), the United States Supreme Court 

extended the good faith exception to searches conducted in objectively 

reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent. Although the 

Tennessee Supreme Court has not yet addressed whether a “good faith”

exception is applicable in Tennessee and the Tennessee Court of Criminal

Appeals has in several opinions [but in other contexts] refused to recognize 

such an exception, See W. Mark Ward, TENNESSEE CRIMINAL TRIAL

PRACTICE § 7:10 (West 2013-2014) (collecting cases), none of the cases 

that have addressed this situation have considered it in light of an officer‟s 

reliance upon a state statute and appellate precedent that appeared to 

dispense with the warrant requirement. Consider State v. Thomas,2013

WL 4715660 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 30, 2013). 

Furthermore, in a closely related issue, the legislature in 2011 

enacted the “Exclusionary Rule Reform Act” [Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-

108(c)(3)] which allows a good faith exception to searches conducted 

pursuant to search warrants when an officer acts in “reasonable reliance on 
7

a statute that is subsequently ruled unconstitutional; or controlling 

precedent that is overruled after the issuance of the search warrant. . .” 

Thus, the legislature has recently indicated a willingness to soften the 

exclusionary rule in some circumstances and expressed public opinion in 

support of a relaxation of such a rule.

Accordingly, in this matter of first impression, this Court concludes 

that even if the blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment and Tennessee 

Constitution, Article I, § 7, that the results of the test should not be 

excluded under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. 

Excluding the evidence under the present circumstances would have no 

deterrent value to law enforcement officers, whatsoever. Here the officer 

was clearly acting under a good faith belief that he was abiding by the law 

and not violating any rights of the defendant. To suppress the evidence in 

the context of this case serves no significant purpose.

In State v. Carter, 16 S.W.3d 762, 768 n.8 (Tenn. 2000), the Tennessee Supreme Court 

said “we decline to address [the good faith exception‟s] validity under the Tennessee 

Constitution until the issue is squarely presented.” Meanwhile, the Tennessee Court of 

Criminal Appeals has indicated a reluctance to adopt the good faith exception until the 

matter is addressed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. State v. Lonnie Taylor, 1987 WL 

25417 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). This Court respectfully submits the present ruling 

hoping that the issue will be “squarely presented” and finally decided by our appellate 

courts.

We decline to uphold the trial court‟s finding of a good faith exception. The State 

notes that our Supreme Court has accepted a case that involves a similar issue; however, 

it is not the role of this Court to speculate or guess at what might become the law. 

Currently, there is not a recognized “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement in 

the state of Tennessee. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court‟s denial of the 

Defendant‟s motion to suppress.

Even should the Supreme Court ultimately adopt a “good faith” exception, our 

review of the record did not reveal any evidence that the officer relied on case law for the 

proposition that dissipation in the blood is an exigent circumstance. The officer testified 

that it was his “understanding” that he was following “policy.” There was no evidence 

presented as to whether the policy was based on convenience, financial resources, or the 

statute itself. As to an exception based on a statute later found unconstitutional, this 

Court has concluded that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406 does not dispense 

with the warrant requirement and is constitutional. See State v. Charles A. Kennedy, 
8

M2013-02207-CCA-R9-CD, 2014 WL 4953586, (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oct. 

13, 2014), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. 

III. Conclusion

In accordance with the aforementioned reasoning and authorities, we reverse the 

trial court‟s judgment denying the Defendant‟s motion to suppress. We remand this case 

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

_________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE