TN: SW didn’t say blood to be taken and seized could be tested, but it could be under common sense reading

“Although the warrant did not specifically state that the blood was to be ‘tested,’ ‘analyzed,’ or ‘examined’ for such intoxicants, a logical, commonsense reading of the warrant shows that the warrant was meant to authorize such analysis because an intoxicating substance cannot be found in blood unless the blood is tested. Therefore, we conclude that the search warrant authorized the taking and analysis of the Defendant’s blood.” State v. Arora, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 573 (Dec. 23, 2024).

Officers lawfully approached defendant’s vehicle parked partly on the sidewalk. They didn’t have to just issue a parking ticket. United States v. Howard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231999 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2024).*

In an R&R, the USMJ holds that there’s no showing for a Franks hearing, and defendant should prevail on the motion to suppress because of a lack of probable cause. United States v. Holloman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232139 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.