E.D.Ky.: RS started here with def’s justification for his actions on being a DEA informant

Defendant was validly stopped for a turn signal violation. During the stop, reasonable suspicion developed starting with defendant volunteering he was a DEA informant. United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158598 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 18, 2018).*

Defendant argued his request for a breath test was for a “breathalyzer” not for an “Intoximeter,” but he refused so a search warrant for blood was obtained. “[T]he right to a pre-arrest chemical analysis is a purely statutory right that is invoked only by a defendant’s ‘request’ for that test, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress on the grounds that ‘[n]o violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-16.2(i) occurred[.]’” State v. Thabet, 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 908 (Sep. 18, 2018).*

BIA suppression wasn’t warranted because regulations weren’t violated and the detention was reasonable. Onofre-Rojas v. Sessions, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26450 (9th Cir. Sep. 18, 2018).*

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

Comments are closed.