OH5: Affidavit did not specify date, but it was within previous three weeks, so it was not stale

While the affidavit for the search warrant did not specifically state the date of the informant’s observations of drugs in defendant’s house, it was apparent that it was within a three week span before the warrant issued, so it was not stale. State v. Johnson, 2008 Ohio 5907, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 4960 (4th Dist. November 5, 2008).*

Schmerber applies to taking of breath and blood in Illinois. People v. Carey, 386 Ill. App. 3d 254, 325 Ill. Dec. 848, 898 N.E.2d 1127 (2008):

In light of the above, it is clear that defendant’s consent to the breath test, knowing or otherwise, is not a factor to be considered in determining whether the test results are admissible at trial. Rather, irrespective of whether defendant was compelled to submit to the test during an administrative investigation, the proper fourth amendment inquiry is whether the police had probable cause to arrest defendant and charge him with DUI, whether the delay caused by obtaining a search warrant would have risked the loss of evidence, and whether the procedure employed to obtain the breath sample was reasonable.

Officer’s testimony credited that defendant was swerving, and that justified the stop. State v. Ross, 2008 MT 369, 346 Mont. 460, 197 P.3d 937 (2008).*