{"id":6586,"date":"2012-05-15T21:00:49","date_gmt":"2012-01-25T06:40:54","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-01-25T06:40:54","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6586","title":{"rendered":"IL: Affidavit for drugs in blood was based on speculation and without PC; no GFE either"},"content":{"rendered":"

The affidavit for the search warrant for defendant\u2019s blood for evidence of drug use in a DUI case was completely deficient and speculative. Accordingly, the good faith exception would not apply either. People v. Miranda<\/a>, 2012 IL App (2d) 100769, 964 N.E.2d 1241 (2012):<\/p>\n

[**11] Although this test is highly deferential, we must conclude that McLean’s affidavit did not provide a substantial basis to find probable cause that testing defendant’s urine would reveal the presence of any controlled substance. McLean’s affidavit said next to nothing about controlled substances, and what scant mention it did make was unsupported by facts. McLean referred to finding physical evidence of alcohol consumption (the open Heineken bottles), but not to finding any physical evidence of drug use. He stated that he smelled alcohol on defendant’s breath, observed standard indicia of alcohol intoxication, learned from defendant that he had consumed alcohol, and administered field sobriety tests that defendant failed. As a result of all of the foregoing, McLean “believed that [defendant] was under the influence of alcohol” (emphasis added) and arrested him for DUI. Conspicuously absent from McLean’s detailed factual recitation was any reference to controlled substances or any evidence that defendant had used them. McLean did not state that any of these facts made him suspect that defendant had used controlled substances.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The evidence showed that the defendant only used the shed on a friend\u2019s property when he was there visiting during the day, and then only to leave the bicycle he rode there, the backpack he wore, and his coat. Otherwise, nothing was kept there. That was not enough to create \u201cstanding\u201d in the premises. People v. Nichols<\/a>, 2012 IL App (2d) 100028, 964 N.E.2d 1190 (2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6586","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}