Defendant was validly stopped for a turn signal violation. During the stop, reasonable suspicion developed starting with defendant volunteering he was a DEA informant. United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158598 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 18, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Defendant argued his request for a breath test was for a \u201cbreathalyzer\u201d not for an \u201cIntoximeter,\u201d but he refused so a search warrant for blood was obtained. \u201c[T]he right to a pre-arrest chemical analysis is a purely statutory right that is invoked only by a defendant’s \u2018request\u2019 for that test, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress on the grounds that \u2018[n]o violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-16.2(i) occurred[.]\u2019\u201d State v. Thabet, 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 908 (Sep. 18, 2018).*<\/p>\n
BIA suppression wasn\u2019t warranted because regulations weren\u2019t violated and the detention was reasonable. Onofre-Rojas v. Sessions, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26450 (9th Cir. Sep. 18, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was validly stopped for a turn signal violation. During the stop, reasonable suspicion developed starting with defendant volunteering he was a DEA informant. United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158598 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 18, 2018).* Defendant argued … Continue reading