Since defendant\u2019s DNA Fourth Amendment claim was decided on the merits of his appeal, it can\u2019t be litigated in a 2255. Thomas v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133478 (D.Me. September 30, 2015).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s consent to a blood draw for DUI marijuana was valid. \u201cAccording to Alvarez, no consequences were explained to her. [\u00b6] But no case holds, or least Alvarez has not cited one, that where a defendant signs a written form affirmatively stating \u2018I, [defendant], do hereby consent to the withdrawal of a blood sample from my body,\u2019 that written consent is insufficient because the officer did not advise the defendant that she did not have to sign the form. Even when the lack of the advisement is considered in connection with Alvarez’s custody status, age, and lack of prior contacts with law enforcement, there is simply no caselaw to support Alvarez’s urging of a constitutional violation.\u201d United States v. Alvarez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135743 (N.D.Cal. October 5, 2015).*<\/p>\n
A trunk lid bouncing open was reasonable suspicion for a stop. Commonwealth v. Williams<\/a>, 2015 PA Super 216, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 581 (October 6, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Since defendant\u2019s DNA Fourth Amendment claim was decided on the merits of his appeal, it can\u2019t be litigated in a 2255. Thomas v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133478 (D.Me. September 30, 2015). Defendant\u2019s consent to a blood draw … Continue reading