Category Archives: Drug or alcohol testing

OR: Hyperventilating def was exigency for dispensing with blood draw warrant as time wore on

Because the warrant process [despite Oregon’s use of telephonic warrants] would take 2½ hours, there was exigency for defendant’s blood draw in the hospital. Moreover, defendant was hyperventilating when he was stopped, and they didn’t know whether he was faking … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OR: Hyperventilating def was exigency for dispensing with blood draw warrant as time wore on

KY: DUI roadblock failed state’s well established standards

Kentucky DUI roadblock failed the standards adopted a decade ago, and the stop had to be suppressed. Some standards were complied with, but not enough to make the court comfortable with this one. Commonwealth v. Cox, 2015 Ky. LEXIS 2010 … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Roadblocks | Comments Off on KY: DUI roadblock failed state’s well established standards

TN: “The statutorily created implied consent satisfies the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.”

“The statutorily created implied consent satisfies the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” “Recently, this Court has held that ‘consent occurs at the point that a driver undertakes the privilege of operating a motor vehicle in the State … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Probable cause | Comments Off on TN: “The statutorily created implied consent satisfies the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.”

Cal.5th: Schmerber applies pre-McNeely and def’s statement he was withdrawing from meth was exigency for a blood draw

Schmerber not McNeely was the law at the time of the blood draw here, and Davis means that Schmerber applies. Here, defendant said to a nurse he was withdrawing from methamphetamine and that reasonably was exigency. People v. Jimenez, 2015 … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Good faith exception | Comments Off on Cal.5th: Schmerber applies pre-McNeely and def’s statement he was withdrawing from meth was exigency for a blood draw

SCOTUS cert. grant: “Whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.”

SCOTUS granted cert today on the question of whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, SCOTUS | Comments Off on SCOTUS cert. grant: “Whether, in the absence of a warrant, a state may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.”

AZ implied consent law valid under McNeely

“Defendant now challenges the facial constitutionality of [the Arizona implied consent law,] § 28-1321, arguing that it is invalid under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013), … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on AZ implied consent law valid under McNeely

AR: DUI checkpoint on an interstate highway without a plan or supervision was unconstitutional

A DUI checkpoint on I-540 through Fort Smith, Arkansas was set up and executed without a plan, and it was unconstitutional. There was no supervisor there and nothing to limit discretion. Every car was stopped, except until a traffic jam … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Roadblocks | Comments Off on AR: DUI checkpoint on an interstate highway without a plan or supervision was unconstitutional

CA8: Linn State Tech College’s student drug testing policy constitutional; special needs proven [Update: rev’d en banc 12/22/16]

Missouri’s Linn State Technical College’s student drug testing policy is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. After the prior appeal, Barrett v. Claycomb, 705 F.3d 315 (8th Cir. 2013), the district court erred in conducting a program-by-program analysis of where the … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Special needs | Comments Off on CA8: Linn State Tech College’s student drug testing policy constitutional; special needs proven [Update: rev’d en banc 12/22/16]

HI: Under state constitution, telling a motorist that if he doesn’t give a breath sample he’ll go to jail for 30 days is not voluntary consent

Under the Hawai’i Constitution’s protection of individual privacy, telling a motorist that if he doesn’t give a breath sample he’ll go to jail for 30 days is not voluntary consent. State v. Won, 2015 Haw. LEXIS 317 (Nov. 25, 2015) … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on HI: Under state constitution, telling a motorist that if he doesn’t give a breath sample he’ll go to jail for 30 days is not voluntary consent

Cal.App.Div.: Not giving the implied consent law’s admonitions doesn’t make the BAC test result inadmissible; totality of circumstances of consent still applies

Not giving the implied consent law’s admonitions doesn’t make the BAC test result inadmissible. The totality of the circumstances for consent can still be considered. Remanded. People v. Agnew, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1032 (App.Div. Santa Clara Oct. 26, 2015):

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on Cal.App.Div.: Not giving the implied consent law’s admonitions doesn’t make the BAC test result inadmissible; totality of circumstances of consent still applies

NM: Lack of prior notice of a sobriety checkpoint not fatal; suppression reversed

“The State of New Mexico appeals from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence based on an unconstitutional sobriety checkpoint. The State raises a single issue on appeal: whether the lack of advance publicity makes a sobriety checkpoint unconstitutional, … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Roadblocks | Comments Off on NM: Lack of prior notice of a sobriety checkpoint not fatal; suppression reversed

OR: Suspicion of being under the influence of a stimulant was exigency for warrantless UA

There were exigent circumstances for a warrantless UA of the defendant because he was suspected to be under the influence of a stimulant that would dissipate more rapidly than alcohol. State v. Raymond, 274 Ore. App. 409, 2015 Ore. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on OR: Suspicion of being under the influence of a stimulant was exigency for warrantless UA

TX: Counsel’s isolated statements a SW wasn’t obtained for a blood draw was not enough to put state and court on notice that exigency needed to be decided

“Are isolated statements globally asserting that a blood draw was conducted without a warrant enough to apprise the trial court that it must consider whether there were exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless search in a driving while intoxicated case, … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on TX: Counsel’s isolated statements a SW wasn’t obtained for a blood draw was not enough to put state and court on notice that exigency needed to be decided

MN: Criminalizing a motorist’s refusal to take a blood test under Minnesota’s statute fails strict scrutiny review

Criminalizing a motorist’s refusal to take a blood test under Minnesota’s statute fails strict scrutiny review. “We conclude that criminalizing the refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test ‘relates to the state’s ability to prosecute drunk drivers and keep … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on MN: Criminalizing a motorist’s refusal to take a blood test under Minnesota’s statute fails strict scrutiny review

D.Me.: Fourth Amendment claim decided on appeal can’t be raised in 2255

Since defendant’s DNA Fourth Amendment claim was decided on the merits of his appeal, it can’t be litigated in a 2255. Thomas v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133478 (D.Me. September 30, 2015). Defendant’s consent to a blood draw … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Me.: Fourth Amendment claim decided on appeal can’t be raised in 2255

Cal. Riverside: Refusal of a BAC test was constitutionally protected and couldn’t separately be prosecuted

Mere refusal of a BAC test was constitutionally protected and couldn’t be prosecuted. “Here, police did not attempt to obtain a warrant or to perform a forced blood draw based on another exception to the warrant requirement, such as exigent … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on Cal. Riverside: Refusal of a BAC test was constitutionally protected and couldn’t separately be prosecuted

W.D.Ark.: Warrantless DNA sample 16 days after arrest was unreasonable

Warrantless taking a DNA sample from an arrestee under state law but 16 days after his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. If it was at the time of booking, it would have been reasonable. Nominal damages awarded. Lewis v. Brazell, … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Drug or alcohol testing, Immigration checkpoints | Comments Off on W.D.Ark.: Warrantless DNA sample 16 days after arrest was unreasonable

ProPublica: How Some Alabama Hospitals Quietly Drug Test New Mothers — Without Their Consent

ProPublica: How Some Alabama Hospitals Quietly Drug Test New Mothers — Without Their Consent by Nina Martin, ProPublica, and Amy Yurkanin, AL.com: As hundreds of Alabama women face child endangerment charges, hospitals are mostly mum on their testing policies – … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on ProPublica: How Some Alabama Hospitals Quietly Drug Test New Mothers — Without Their Consent

TN: Inconvenience in getting a blood draw warrant is not exigency

Defendant was in a single car accident that killed his passenger. When he was in the hospital getting treatment, there was a warrantless blood draw. The state couldn’t rely on the implied consent statute where it relied on exigency at … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on TN: Inconvenience in getting a blood draw warrant is not exigency

IL: A forced chemical test of the blood two days after an accident was after the reduced REP of a driver had lapsed

A chemical test of appellant’s blood violated the Fourth Amendment because the police sought a chemical test two days after the car accident when plaintiff no longer had a diminished expectation of privacy. McElwain v. Office of the Ill. Secy. … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on IL: A forced chemical test of the blood two days after an accident was after the reduced REP of a driver had lapsed