State of Tennessee v. Katherine Hart Collier, M2017-00511-CCA-R3-CD

On March 13, 2016 Officer Ashton Matheny stopped Katherine Collier after observing lane deviations; he arrested her for DUI, brought her to the hospital for a blood draw, and she refused consent.
Matheny obtained a magistrate-issued search warrant for Collier’s blood; multiple copies and the magistrate’s log contained inconsistent times of issuance (e.g., “2044 a.m.”, “2244 p.m.”), and the copies were not identical.
Forensic document examiner testified the logbook time was altered and that copies were photocopies of an original; the magistrate (Lawrence Bull) and officer gave inconsistent explanations about how the documents were prepared and when discrepancies were discovered.
Trial court concluded the time discrepancies and non‑identical copies violated Tenn. R. Crim. P. 41 and were not mere clerical errors or good‑faith mistakes, suppressed the BAC results, and dismissed the entire indictment (including DUI per se and other counts).
The State appealed; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed suppression of the BAC evidence (and thus dismissal of the DUI per se count) but reversed dismissal of the remaining charges and remanded for reinstatement of those counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Collier)	Held
Validity of search warrant copies / time discrepancies under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 41	Discrepancies were clerical errors / good‑faith mistakes under the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act	Discrepancies indicate noncompliance with Rule 41 and support suppression	Court: Discrepancies meant copies were not identical and could not be shown to be mere clerical errors; suppression of BAC affirmed
Applicability of Exclusionary Rule Reform Act (good‑faith exception)	Warrant defects were technical or clerical; statute precludes suppression if mistake was good faith	Magistrate’s and officer’s inconsistent testimony showed lack of good faith; statute inapplicable	Court: Trial court discredited witnesses; record does not show good faith or mere clerical mistake; statute does not save the warrant
Dismissal of the entire indictment because the State used suppressed evidence before the grand jury	Dismissal was excessive; grand jury may consider evidence even if later suppressed; remaining charges viable without BAC results	State’s use of illegally obtained BAC at grand jury violated due process and warrants dismissal	Court: Dismissal of whole indictment was error; grand jury consideration of inadmissible evidence is not judicially reviewable, so only DUI per se count (dependent on BAC) must be dismissed; remaining counts reinstated

State v. Bobadilla, 181 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 2005) (magistrate’s endorsement must show issuance time so execution-before-issuance discrepancies are apparent)
State v. Pruitt, 510 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. 2016) (time/date discrepancies may be technical errors; credibility of officer testimony can determine good‑faith application)
State v. Spurlock, 874 S.W.2d 602 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (knowing use of false testimony violates due process)
State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996) (trial court findings on motions to suppress are binding on appeal absent preponderating evidence)