CT: Blood on finger seen at police station could be seized for DNA under exigent circumstances

When defendant was in custody, police saw blood on his finger. Exigent circumstances justified taking a DNA swab of the blood before it disappeared. As to the search of a second floor apartment, defendant asserted in his motion to suppress that it was his “home” but he put on no proof of that, so that was properly denied too. Also, nothing was identified as coming from the home. State v. Braswell, 145 Conn. App. 617 (September 10, 2013).

The CI’s story was reliable, and it was face-to-face with the police on the street. State v. Crespo, 145 Conn. App. 547, 76 A.3d 664 (2013).*

A fireman in a fire truck with lights and siren stopped defendant for DUI. The trial court suppressed, and the court remands. There are inadequate findings on whether the fireman was a “government actor” or private actor. The court also espouses on the law of citizen’s arrest. State v. Verkerk, 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 931 (September 3, 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.