WA: Mandatory UAs valid on supervision despite not being related to crime of conviction

Even though mandatory UA for drug and alcohol don’t directly relate to defendant’s crimes of conviction, there still is a compelling interest in the state being able to test. State v. Nelson, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 150 (Mar. 27, 2025).

The officer’s identification of defendant as the driver of a pickup truck when with a clear view then eluding the police was sufficient for probable cause. United States v. Feazell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56479 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2025).*

“Having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the motion papers and the parties’ arguments, and assuming, arguendo, that Hamilton has standing to raise the Fourth Amendment concerns here at issue, the Court finds Hamilton’s motion lacks merit. The affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant for the residence at 5211 Lome Avenue sets forth ample indicia of probable cause; is sufficiently particular as to the items to be searched; demonstrates the required ‘probable cause nexus,’ … and is neither vague nor conclusory …. Probable cause is not a ‘high bar.’ Hamilton does not challenge the validity of the search warrant and thus it is presumed valid. … Moreover, even if the Court were to now find the warrant lacking—which it does not—the officers relied in good faith on the search warrant at issue, and the good faith exception would apply. …” United States v. Hamilton, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57362 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2025);* United States v. Dillard, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57357 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.