{"id":14087,"date":"2014-11-10T07:55:18","date_gmt":"2014-11-10T12:55:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14087"},"modified":"2014-11-10T07:55:18","modified_gmt":"2014-11-10T12:55:18","slug":"il-implied-consent-statute-not-unconstitutional-under-mcneely","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14087","title":{"rendered":"IL implied consent statute not unconstitutional under McNeely"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Illinois&#8217;s implied-consent statutory scheme did not unconstitutionally circumvent defendant&#8217;s Fourth Amendment rights by punishing him for refusing to take the chemical analysis by suspending his driver&#8217;s license and introducing his refusal against him at his criminal trial. A per se approach to warrantless blood draws had been rejected, and the dissipation of alcohol in the blood could support an exigency finding based on the totality of the circumstances. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.il.us\/court\/Opinions\/AppellateCourt\/2014\/4thDistrict\/4130346.pdf\">People v. Gaede<\/a>, 2014 IL App (4th) 130346, 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 772 (November 4, 2014).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant was not entitled to return of some of the property at issue under Rule 41(g) because it was evidence of the crime or a product of the financial crime. Coston v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156536 (N.D. N.Y. November 4, 2014).*<\/p>\n<p>Reasonable suspicion of a window tint violation was apparent, and probable cause wasn\u2019t needed for a stop. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/2\/2014\/2014-ohio-4963.pdf\">State v. Scott<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-4963, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4839 (2d Dist. November 7, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Illinois&#8217;s implied-consent statutory scheme did not unconstitutionally circumvent defendant&#8217;s Fourth Amendment rights by punishing him for refusing to take the chemical analysis by suspending his driver&#8217;s license and introducing his refusal against him at his criminal trial. A per se &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14087\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55,35,67,37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14087","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drug-testing","category-reasonable-suspicion","category-rule-41g-return-of-property","category-warrant-requirement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14087","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14087"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14087\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14099,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14087\/revisions\/14099"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14087"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14087"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}