Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Wilson

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

May 24, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
CHRISTOPHER WILSON

          Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015

          Remanded by the Supreme Court November 22, 2016

         Interlocutory Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 1400109 W. Mark Ward, Judge

         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. 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 contended 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 review, we concluded that the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant's motion to suppress because, at that time, there was not a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. State v. Christopher Wilson, W2015-00699-CCA-R9-CD, 2016 WL 1627145, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, April 21, 2016). On November 22, 2016, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted Defendant's application for permission to appeal and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of the supreme court's recent opinion in State v. Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d 283 (Tenn. 2016). Upon reconsideration in light of Reynolds, we conclude that the officer acted with reasonable good-faith reliance on binding precedent in effect at the time. Accordingly, we reinstate and affirm the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress.

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

          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.

          Robert W. Wedemeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Alan E. Glenn, J., joined. Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., concurs in results only in a separate opinion.

          OPINION

          ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE.

         I. Facts

         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 prior convictions on March 11, 2008, and January 24, 1995, for driving while under the influence.

         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 an 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 sobriety ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.