Following defendant into his driveway did not violate curtilage. The officer walked around the truck to see if it matched one in a store surveillance video. United States v. Rojas, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140708 (N.D. Iowa October 3, 2014), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144338 (N.D. Iowa October 10, 2014).<\/p>\n
There was no exigency to dispense with a search warrant for defendant\u2019s blood. A magistrate was on call at the jail 24 hours a day and the officer made no effort to get a search warrant for the blood draw, instead relying solely on the implied consent law. The implied consent statute is not unconstitutional because it does not mandate a blood draw in violation of McNeely. State v. Wells<\/a>, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 933 (October 6, 2014).<\/p>\n HuffPo: Cops Mistake Okra For Marijuana, Send The Big Guns To Man’s House<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Following defendant into his driveway did not violate curtilage. The officer walked around the truck to see if it matched one in a store surveillance video. United States v. Rojas, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140708 (N.D. Iowa October 3, 2014), … Continue reading