KS: GFE applies to blood draw before court held it unconstitutional

“Applying State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764, 449 P.3d 756 (2019), to the circumstances of this case, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies and allowed the district court to consider the results of a blood test for blood alcohol content even though the Kansas Supreme Court would later hold that K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 8-1025 was unconstitutional.” State v. Heim, 2020 Kan. LEXIS 257 (Nov. 20, 2020); City of Kingman v. Ary, 2020 Kan. LEXIS 258 (Nov. 20, 2020).

Defense counsel’s valid belief that the automobile exception applied to defendant’s vehicle was reasonable and was not ineffective assistance. Blankenship v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215819 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 18, 2020).*

Defendant voluntarily consented in the hour officers were talking to him. He also can’t complain about another’s consent to his own property. United States v. Davenport, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216688 (D. Conn. Nov. 19, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.