NY3: Despite suppressed statement, plenty of evidence supported strip search for drugs

Defendant was in a car stopped for a traffic offense, and the driver got out agitated and crying that the passengers had drugs on them. They consented to searches of their persons and drugs were found. On the way to the station house, defendant was asked about other drugs and admitted having some, but that statement was suppressed for a Miranda violation. The strip search finding a package of drugs in his rectum was still valid because of everything else the police already knew even discarding the suppressed statement. People v. George, 2015 NY Slip Op 03574, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3543 (3d Dept. April 30, 2015).

Tennessee’s mandatory DWI blood draw statute is not unconstitutional under McNeely because warrantless blood draws on exigent circumstances are still required. State v. Brown, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 312 (April 30, 2015).*

The officer’s testimony and video of the traffic stop show that defendant consented to a search of the cigarette pack on him at the time of the stop. Walker v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4424 (Tex. App. – Tyler April 30, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Independent source. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.