KS: Statute permitting search warrant for “things” and “property” which were used in a crime permits taking samples of the defendant’s blood, hair, buccal cells, and fingerprints

“The legislature’s use of broad language in K.S.A. 22-2502(a)(1) of ‘[a]ny things which have been used in the commission of a crime’ and ‘any property which constitutes or may be considered a part of the evidence,’ gave the district court jurisdiction to issue a search warrant in this case for samples of the defendant’s blood, hair, buccal cells, and fingerprints.” State v. Powell, 45 Kan. App. 2d 1090, 257 P.3d 1244 (2011).

The stop of defendant for not moving over for a stopped emergency vehicle was valid, and DUI affirmed. State v. Brooks, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 462 (June 22, 2011).*

The defendant moved to suppress the search under a warrant, and the trial court granted it. The state requested findings of fact and conclusions of law on possible exceptions, but the trial court felt constrained to rule only on the warrant. Remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law on possible exceptions to the warrant as alternatives to sustain the search. State v. Alberts, 354 S.W.3d 320 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).*