Although the stop of defendant\u2019s car was unreasonable, defendant still doesn\u2019t have standing to question the search of his passenger. United States v. Kuespert, 773 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir. 1985). United States v. Abarza, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103035 (D.Ore. Aug. 5, 2016).<\/p>\n
It wasn\u2019t error to deny defendant’s motion to suppress his warrantless blood draw because the State showed the implied consent exception to the warrant requirement applied. The officer had reasonable grounds to believe defendant was DUI, so he gave his implied consent to having his blood drawn due to the implied consent statute based on the totality of the circumstances. Defendant\u2019s consent was voluntary and continued through to the blood draw; nothing showed he drove involuntarily or withdrew his consent. The State did not have to prove the consent was continuous, and he did not claim he was told he had to submit to the blood draw. State v. Charlson<\/a>, 2016 Ida. LEXIS 230 (Aug. 5, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Although the stop of defendant\u2019s car was unreasonable, defendant still doesn\u2019t have standing to question the search of his passenger. United States v. Kuespert, 773 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir. 1985). United States v. Abarza, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103035 (D.Ore. … Continue reading