A warrant for taking blood presumes that it will be tested, too, and the warrant doesn\u2019t need to specify. A Washington state case saying otherwise is not followed. In any event, it would be in good faith to have tested it. United States v. Williams, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42342 (E.D.Wash. March 31, 2015).<\/p>\n
Plaintiff\u2019s 1983 false arrest case defense summary judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. There was probable cause for the stop and arrest as to some things but not others. The state malicious prosecution claim can proceed. Benavidez v. Cibola County<\/a>, 2015 N.M. App. LEXIS 40 (March 31, 2015).*<\/p>\n Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the search for child pornography was unparticularized and denied by the USMJ and that\u2019s adopted. United States v. Peterson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44253 (D.Minn. April 2, 2015),* R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44366 (D.Minn. January 14, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A warrant for taking blood presumes that it will be tested, too, and the warrant doesn\u2019t need to specify. A Washington state case saying otherwise is not followed. In any event, it would be in good faith to have tested … Continue reading