ME: First blood draw was potentially contaminated, so second was valid under exigent circumstances

The state showed by a preponderance of the evidence that there were exigent circumstances for a warrantless blood draw. Natural dissipation of alcohol alone is not an exigency under McNealy. The first blood draw was potentially contaminated, so a second became necessary but it was getting late. State v. Martin, 2018 ME 144, 2018 Me. LEXIS 149 (Oct. 23, 2018).

The 2255 claim was based on defense counsel not properly handling the motion to suppress, “These arguments are contradicted by the record.” “Petitioner contends that his trial counsel did not ‘properly handle the Motion to Suppress evidence’ and erred by 1) ‘not focusing on the failure of the agents to get a search warrant for [Petitioner’s] apartment prior to seizing [his] computer[,]’ 2) failing to ‘investigate’ the search warrant, and 3) not ‘impeach[ing] Agent White’s testimony at the Motion to Suppress hearing after he changed his testimony about what the search warrant commanded.’” Oates v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181452 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2018).*

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

Comments are closed.