OR: Suspicion of being under the influence of a stimulant was exigency for warrantless UA

There were exigent circumstances for a warrantless UA of the defendant because he was suspected to be under the influence of a stimulant that would dissipate more rapidly than alcohol. State v. Raymond, 274 Ore. App. 409, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1259 (Oct. 21, 2015).

Defendant fought with EMTs and tried to get off the gurney after a fatal car wreck that pinned him in his car. At the hospital, however, defendant did not refuse medical treatment. The trial court’s finding that defendant did not refuse medical treatment is supported by the record, and the reckless manslaughter conviction is affirmed. [The blood draw could then be justified via medical treatment.] State v. Nissley, 2015 Ariz. App. LEXIS 264 (Oct. 20, 2015).*

This successive 2255 can’t be filed to pursue a search and Brady claim. Neither fits the successive habeas rule as newly discovered or a new rule of law. In re Alferez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18423 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.