Category Archives: Drug or alcohol testing

OH7: 23 days isn’t stale in a SW for guns

The police were in defendant’s house and observed guns. They didn’t realize that he was a felon in possession until two weeks later. Then they sought a warrant 23 days after seeing the guns. That wasn’t unreasonable considering the fact … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Staleness | Comments Off on OH7: 23 days isn’t stale in a SW for guns

PA: Reasonableness inquiry always required for warrantless blood draw

Trial court failed to make a reasonableness inquiry of whether the warrantless search of defendant’s blood was objectively reasonable. Reversed and remanded. Commonwealth v. Trahey, 2018 PA Super 72, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 276 (Mar. 26, 2018):

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Reasonableness | Comments Off on PA: Reasonableness inquiry always required for warrantless blood draw

CA10: Carelessly unloading watermelons from a box truck away from a loading dock and in middle of night with “nonsensical” answers was PC

Officers had probable cause to search defendants’ box truck. They were unloading watermelons in the middle of the night on wet grass and not at some loading dock coupled with all the unusual, vague, and even “nonsensical” excuses for why … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA10: Carelessly unloading watermelons from a box truck away from a loading dock and in middle of night with “nonsensical” answers was PC

FL4: Implied consent doesn’t violate 4A because there are no criminal penalties for denying consent

The Florida implied consent statute does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it does not impose criminal penalties for non-compliance, and only administrative or evidentiary penalties. Defendant was unconscious at the time of the draw. McGraw v. State, 2018 Fla. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on FL4: Implied consent doesn’t violate 4A because there are no criminal penalties for denying consent

OH12: Father’s admission of using heroin justified hair follicle testing in custody matter

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering hair follicle testing of the father because of his admissions he’d used heroin. Hatfield v. Cornell, 2018-Ohio-798, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 840 (12th Dist. Mar. 5, 2018). Defendant’s Franks challenge … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on OH12: Father’s admission of using heroin justified hair follicle testing in custody matter

W.D.N.Y.: Officers’ one minute discussion about def deciding what to do wasn’t being undiligent in pursuing their investigation

The officer here had reasonable suspicion defendant was carrying drugs, and the fact that another officer arrived and they talked about defendant for one minute didn’t show that they weren’t diligently following up in their investigation. United States v. Green, … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Officers’ one minute discussion about def deciding what to do wasn’t being undiligent in pursuing their investigation

W.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was unjustified and suppressed

The protective sweep here was unreasonable because the officers had no articulable facts at all that there was potentially anyone inside before entering. United States v. Rucker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33607 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 1, 2018). “Mr. Huffman had … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Protective sweep | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was unjustified and suppressed

SD: Search incident doctrine doesn’t apply to driver’s urine samples

A urine sample can’t be taken from a suspect incident to an arrest. Nothing about the search incident doctrine of officer safety and destruction of evidence applies to urine samples. State v. Lar, 2018 SD 18, 2018 S.D. LEXIS 26 … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Search incident | Comments Off on SD: Search incident doctrine doesn’t apply to driver’s urine samples

OH5: Exigency for blood draw from accident at 1:30 am and hospitalization

Exigent circumstances existed which justified the warrantless draw of defendant’s blood. “The accident occurred at approximately 1:30 a.m. on May 8, 2016. After his initial contact with Appellant, Officer Lewis was unable to investigate further due to Appellant’s condition. Emergency … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on OH5: Exigency for blood draw from accident at 1:30 am and hospitalization

TN: Where BAC forensic testing budget depends on convictions, due process violated

A state fee for forensic testing of BAC in the TBI that depends on convictions is essentially a contingent fee for conviction. The TBI forensic team are not adjudicators in the Tumey–Ward due process analysis, but it is clear that … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Knock and announce | Comments Off on TN: Where BAC forensic testing budget depends on convictions, due process violated

HI: Defendant could properly be prosecuted for refusing a breath test, but not a blood test

Defendant could properly be prosecuted for refusing a breath test, but not a blood test. State v. Wilson, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 25 (Jan. 26, 2018).* Defendant was a mere passenger in the car searched, and he lacks standing to … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Informant hearsay, Standing | Comments Off on HI: Defendant could properly be prosecuted for refusing a breath test, but not a blood test

ND: Audio of def’s arrest shows he consented to the blood test

Defendant consented to the blood test. “At the suppression hearing the district court heard testimony from both Sergeant Stoltz and Montgomery as well as listened to the audio recording of the arrest. The district court noted an extended dialogue between … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Probable cause | Comments Off on ND: Audio of def’s arrest shows he consented to the blood test