AR: Error in officers’ testimony as to place actually searched was properly excluded at trial as potentially confusing where it was clearly def’s place

Police confusion at trial as to the address actually searched wasn’t relevant, and the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in foreclosing questions about that for confusion of the issues. “But his argument ignores the undisputed proof that the drugs and other contraband were found in the trailer that he was occupying–regardless of its physical, numerical address–at the time the search warrant was executed.” Kellensworth v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 249, 2020 Ark. App. LEXIS 282 (Apr. 22, 2020).

The warrantless blood draw at the hospital of defendant in a coma after a car accident was valid. State v. Miller, 2020 La. App. LEXIS 551 (La. App. 2 Cir. Apr. 22, 2020).

The state failed to show exigency for dispensing with a search warrant for defendant’s blood where it was possible he could have given a breath sample, and that wasn’t explored. Commonwealth v. Trahey, 2020 Pa. LEXIS 2230 (Apr. 22, 2020).

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Drug or alcohol testing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.