The CI was recently arrested in this investigation, and, while he had no track record, his tale was sufficiently corroborated by other information that had been developed to make him believable enough for probable cause. United States v. Arballo, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27542 (D.Minn. February 6, 2015).<\/p>\n
\u201cWe conclude that, because defendant was subject to arrest for DUII, and because the administration of the challenged FSTs was reasonable in time, scope, and intensity, the evidence of exigent circumstances in this case was sufficient to make the warrantless administration of those tests constitutionally permissible.\u201d State v. Mazzola<\/a>, 356 Ore. 803 (March 5, 2015) (under state constitution).*<\/p>\n Defendant pled guilty after losing his motion to suppress. Under Tennessee\u2019s certified question of law for appeal process, defendant was told that the suppression issue was not dispositive of the appeal, so it can\u2019t be IAC. Carter v. State<\/a>, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 147 (March 3, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The CI was recently arrested in this investigation, and, while he had no track record, his tale was sufficiently corroborated by other information that had been developed to make him believable enough for probable cause. United States v. Arballo, 2015 … Continue reading