Category Archives: Drug or alcohol testing

CA8: Admission of anonymous tip that led to stop violated Confrontation Clause

Admission in evidence of the anonymous tip that led to defendant’s stop violated the Confrontation Clause. United States v. Simpson, 25-1263 (8th Cir. June 2, 2026). The search warrants here was subject to the Privacy Protection Act, and they were … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Privileges, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA8: Admission of anonymous tip that led to stop violated Confrontation Clause

IN: Overdose call led to EMS telling police what they saw and that led to SW

EMS responded to an overdose call, and they reported what they saw inside which led to police getting a search warrant. Leon v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 171 (May 20, 2026). “Missouri courts have indicated that the question of … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on IN: Overdose call led to EMS telling police what they saw and that led to SW

E.D.Cal.: Just because one officer smelled tobacco in def’s pipe didn’t mean others couldn’t sniff, too

Just because one officer sniffed defendant’s pipe and smelled tobacco, that didn’t mean other officers couldn’t sniff too and come to a different conclusion. United States v. Gearheart, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109593 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2026).* The odor … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Just because one officer smelled tobacco in def’s pipe didn’t mean others couldn’t sniff, too

E.D.Tenn.: PO not needed for a parole search

Defendant’s claim of “reverse stalking horse” parole search because the PO wasn’t present fails. There was reasonable suspicion for the search. United States v. Rose, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103581 (E.D. Tenn. May 11, 2026). The government gets the credibility … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, State constitution | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: PO not needed for a parole search

OR: Voluntary consent to a blood draw after accident and pain meds in hospital

Defendant voluntarily consented to a blood draw for DUII at the hospital despite having been in an accident and received pain medication. State v. Miller, 375 Or. 173 (Apr. 23, 2026). There was probable cause to put a tracking device … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Reasonable suspicion, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on OR: Voluntary consent to a blood draw after accident and pain meds in hospital

CA6: 3 days between controlled buy and SW execution not stale

This search warrant didn’t go stale in the three days between the controlled buy and its execution. United States v. Lawrence, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9780 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2026).* The BAC blood draw statute includes drawing and testing, … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Issue preclusion, Staleness | Comments Off on CA6: 3 days between controlled buy and SW execution not stale

E.D.Mich.: Typo in SW affidavit didn’t justify Franks hearing

A single error in a warrant affidavit that should be characterized as a typo and not a false statement doesn’t justify a Franks hearing. United States v. McClain, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39891 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2026). Defendant had … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Franks doctrine, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Typo in SW affidavit didn’t justify Franks hearing

WI: Interlock device from 2008 BAC refusal proper civil penalty

Refusal of a BAC can legitimately have civil consequences without violating the Fourth Amendment per Birchfield. Here it was a 2008 refusal that led to an interlock in 2013 that was recently violated. State v. Sparby-Duncan, 2026 Wisc. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Drug or alcohol testing, Forfeiture, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on WI: Interlock device from 2008 BAC refusal proper civil penalty

OH2: Failure to call first officer in collective knowledge not error where second officer’s own observations sufficient

The state failed to call the first officer reporting defendant to the second under the collective knowledge doctrine, but that didn’t result in a reversible denial of confrontation. The second officer’s own observations supported it. State v. Simon, 2025-Ohio-5660 (2d … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Collective knowledge, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on OH2: Failure to call first officer in collective knowledge not error where second officer’s own observations sufficient

OR: Four-hour delay in getting BAC SW supported exigency

It would take about four hours to get a BAC search warrant, and the totality of circumstances supported a warrantless blood draw before the BAC dissipated too much more. State v. Sanchez, 344 Or. App. 85 (Oct. 8, 2025):

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on OR: Four-hour delay in getting BAC SW supported exigency

CA6: No property interest shown in blood taken from all infants at birth

The state requiring the taking of some blood from newborn infants for testing and keeping it did not constitute a seizure because plaintiffs proved no property interest. Parental consent is required for any later use. Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep’t of … Continue reading

Posted in Body searches, Drug or alcohol testing, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search, Seizure, Waiver | Comments Off on CA6: No property interest shown in blood taken from all infants at birth

W.D.Okla.: Prison cell search not following policy not a 4A violation

Guard not following prison policy by conducting a cell search alone doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Freeman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112882 (W.D. Okla. June 13, 2025). Plaintiff EMT’s drug test for an accident in his ambulance … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Prison and jail searches, Standards of review | Comments Off on W.D.Okla.: Prison cell search not following policy not a 4A violation

DE: There was RS for handcuffing and frisk of visitor during a probation search

Defendant was a visitor in a home subjected to a probation search, and his movements and words justified handcuffing him to maintain the status quo and then patting him down. “Therefore, Roane’s behavior created both reasonable, articulable suspicion regarding both … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Probation / Parole search, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on DE: There was RS for handcuffing and frisk of visitor during a probation search

W.D.La.: No REP in state pretrial release GPS connecting def to federal crimes

Defendant was on pretrial release on an unrelated state case. As a condition of release, he agreed to a GPS monitor by a private provider who reported to the court. The government used his location information to connect him to … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.La.: No REP in state pretrial release GPS connecting def to federal crimes

W.D.Mo.: Use of stop sticks was a seizure

The use of stop sticks was a seizure, but here it was justified. United States v. Jordan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86127 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 4, 2025).* There was nexus for defendant’s place, and the Franks claim isn’t material. United … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Excessive force, Nexus, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Use of stop sticks was a seizure

WA: Mandatory UAs valid on supervision despite not being related to crime of conviction

Even though mandatory UA for drug and alcohol don’t directly relate to defendant’s crimes of conviction, there still is a compelling interest in the state being able to test. State v. Nelson, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 150 (Mar. 27, 2025). The … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on WA: Mandatory UAs valid on supervision despite not being related to crime of conviction

MT: SW obviates implied consent for BAC test

The police having obtained a search warrant for defendant’s BAC, the implied consent statute doesn’t apply. State v. Clinkenbeard, 2025 MT 54 (Mar. 25, 2025). Defendant’s long standing drug trafficking was not stale. 2022 information was refreshed by 2023 information. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Independent source, Staleness, Waiver | Comments Off on MT: SW obviates implied consent for BAC test

NE: PBT unnecessary for PC if it’s apparent def under influence

The officer didn’t need a PBT to have probable cause for defendant’s DUI arrest. His observation of defendant was enough. State v. Porter, 33 Neb. App. 453 (Feb. 25, 2025).* Inevitable discovery applied. The community caretaking function allowed seizure of … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, FISA, Inevitable discovery, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on NE: PBT unnecessary for PC if it’s apparent def under influence

S.D.N.Y.: Home confinement for pretrial release is not a 4A seizure

“In sum, defendant is not entitled to credit against his sentence for time spent under home confinement as a condition of his bail release. Further, defendant’s time spent on home confinement did not constitute a seizure of his person under … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Ineffective assistance, Seizure | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Home confinement for pretrial release is not a 4A seizure

TN: SW didn’t say blood to be taken and seized could be tested, but it could be under common sense reading

“Although the warrant did not specifically state that the blood was to be ‘tested,’ ‘analyzed,’ or ‘examined’ for such intoxicants, a logical, commonsense reading of the warrant shows that the warrant was meant to authorize such analysis because an intoxicating … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on TN: SW didn’t say blood to be taken and seized could be tested, but it could be under common sense reading