Defendant\u2019s IAC claim here depends on his having standing. His vague allegations of standing aren\u2019t enough. Organes-Espino v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113536 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2016).<\/p>\n
The officer had reasonable suspicion defendant had been driving under the influence after a serious accident with a semi from reports from witnesses. Defendant was handcuffed and put in a police car before going to the hospital. He\u2019d been Mirandized twice and given the implied consent rights twice. The record supports that defendant consented to his blood draw. Gutenstein v. State<\/a>, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 324 (Aug. 31, 2016).*<\/p>\n The approach of defendant\u2019s car was with reasonable suspicion. The implied consent statute is constitutional. Garcia v. Levi<\/a>, 2016 ND 174, 2016 N.D. LEXIS 171 (Aug. 31, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s IAC claim here depends on his having standing. His vague allegations of standing aren\u2019t enough. Organes-Espino v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113536 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2016). The officer had reasonable suspicion defendant had been driving under the … Continue reading