TX5: Warrantless removal of GSR was reasonable

Warrantless swabbing for GSR from defendant’s hands was reasonable because of exigency because it could likely be immediately lost. Argumedo v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3375 (Tex. App. – Dallas May 16, 2025).

Defendant’s Franks claim is more like a hope to cross-examine to find something rather than an assertion of misstated facts. United States v. Coleman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11836 (7th Cir. May 15, 2025).*

Petitioner’s letter to the court is construed to be a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property and is docketed. United States v. Wysinger, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92716 (W.D. Va. May 14, 2025).*

Even if defense counsel was ineffective here (but wasn’t) and then a Miranda violation, “it’s difficult to conceive a different outcome in this case.” United States v. Brazier, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92748 (N.D. Ind. May 14, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.