AR: State implied consent law doesn’t bar SW for blood, following weight of authority

State law on implied consent states that a refusal means “no [other] test will be given” but that does not preclude a search warrant for blood, following the weight of authority. Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, 2015 Ark. LEXIS 353 (May 21, 2015).

Pro se defendant’s motion to suppress cell phone was not ruled on pretrial and then it was admitted without objection at trial. Motion waived from lack of objection. Howard v. State, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 410 (May 22, 2015).*

Excessive window tinting was reason for a stop. United States v. Williams, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66394 (N.D. W.Va. May 21, 2015).*

The collective knowledge of all the officers in the investigation showed probable cause for the stop and search of defendant’s vehicle. United States v. Armstrong, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66741 (S.D. Ga. May 1, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.