“Defendant objects to the magistrate judge’s probable cause determination asserting that ‘defendant believes’ that where a police car is equipped with video recording equipment the officer should be required to use it and that his testimony alone should not be sufficient to support a probable cause determination. Defendant cites no authority in support of his belief and it is not the law.” United States v. Derrick, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82287 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2018).
Implied consent law was followed, and defendant’s consent was valid. Inevitable discovery would also apply. Finally, the California truth-in-evidence provision would not permit exclusion of evidence here for this statutory violation. People v. Vannesse, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 447 (2d Dist. May 16, 2018).*