Defendant was validly stopped for a visual estimate of his speed. He was sweating profusely, and his shirt was wet, and, out of the car, he acted as if he was in a daze. Shortly after the stop, the officer was told on a secure radio channel that defendant was involved in drugs. Basic questions produced inconsistent answers. A dog sniff was valid as was a patdown. The meth pipe was seized from his pocket by plain feel. United States v. Gaffney, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2143 (N.D. Iowa January 8, 2014).<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs\u2019 proposed excessive force jury instructions were substantially covered by the jury instructions given, so there was no plain error. Gray v. Bd. of County Comm’rs<\/a>, 551 Fed. Appx. 666 (4th Cir. 2014).*<\/p>\n Texas law requires a blood draw for a DWI 3d, and the implied consent law was good enough. Reeder v. State<\/a>, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 147 (Tex. App. \u2013 Texarkana January 8, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading