D.Md.: McNeely doesn’t require a warrant for a breath test

Under the federal implied consent law, defendant consented to a BAC breath test. McNeely doesn’t require a warrant before a breath test. “Although a driver has a constitutional right not to be tested without a warrant or a valid warrant exception, he does not have a constitutional right to refuse to be tested or to avoid prosecution for that refusal. See Neville, 459 U.S. at 560 n.10, 103 S. Ct. at 921 n.10 (‘[A] person suspected of drunk driving has no constitutional right to refuse to take a blood-alcohol test.’); Chasingbear, 2014 WL 3802616, at *8 (‘[D]espite a driver’s having the constitutional right not to be tested without a warrant or a valid warrant exception, suspected drunk drivers have no constitutional right to refuse to be tested or to avoid prosecution for that refusal.’). [¶] In short, Defendant has neither the statutory nor the constitutional right to refuse testing without penalty. See Chasingbear, 2014 WL 3802616, at *6. Because 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(c)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 3118 do not violate the Fourth Amendment, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.” United States v. Sugiyama, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87024 (D.Md. July 6, 2015).

Parking a car in a way that obstructs traffic in violation of the city code warranted a “stop” where defendant was ordered back to the vehicle to move it. Defendant was seen pulling out a gun and he tossed it and a struggle ensued. United States v. Hendrix, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86929 (E.D.Mo. June 17, 2015).*

On the totality of circumstances, defendant consented to the entry into his hotel room. United States v. Lebeau, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86841 (D.S.D. June 10, 2015).*