NM: BAC blood draw by SW doesn’t require arrest already have occurred

A BAC blood draw by search warrant does not require the defendant be under arrest first. “[A] constitutionally permissible search of a person’s blood may arise either from an arrest pursuant to the Implied Consent Act or a valid search warrant supported by probable cause..” State v. Garnenez, 2014 N.M. App. LEXIS 108 (November 19, 2014).

In a mistaken arrest § 1983 case, sufficient material fact disputes are in the record to show that he consistently complained that he was the wrong person, and that raises a fact question for trial. Plaintiff also did not show any evidence to get his claim to a pattern and practice claim past summary judgment. A single act doesn’t make for municipal or county liability. Gant v. City of Los Angeles, 12-56080 (9th Cir. November 24, 2014).* (Part of the court’s summary: “Reversing the district court’s dismissal of Ventura’s Fourteenth Amendment against the Los Angeles County defendants and the district court’s dismissal of the California Bane Act claims against the City of Chino defendants, the panel held that (1) the conflicting evidence about whether Ventura complained to Los Angeles County defendants that they had the wrong person raised a genuine issue of material fact; and (2) a trier of fact could conclude that Chino police officers’ quick, insistent questioning was intended to coerce Ventura.”)

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Drug or alcohol testing, Due process. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.