A volunteer fireman diving into defendant\u2019s car to keep him from driving away was a search and seizure. And, the community caretaking function did not apply. \u201cHere, Wahl lacked any specific and articulable facts that Fairrow would be dangerous to himself or others, so his decision to jump headfirst into Fairrow’s car was not reasonable. Simply put, the record does not substantiate Wahl’s concerns that Fairrow was not safe to drive and would hit first responders on the scene if he attempted to drive from the scene. [DN 19 at 41:7-11 (\u2018I jumped through the window to stop the car from \u2026 possibly hitting one of [the first responders], because at that time I still did not really know the state of [Fairrow’s] condition. I didn’t know if he was going to be safe to drive or not.\u2019)].\u201d United States v. Fairrow, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212484 (W.D.Ky. Nov. 2, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOur review of all three Hight factors reveals that the State satisfied its burden of establishing that the circumstances of the defendant’s consent to the blood test purged the taint of his unlawful arrest. Cf. Szczerbiak, 148 N.H. at 357 (concluding that the State purged the taint of the unlawful detention where only one factor \u2014 the lack of \u2018flagrancy\u2019 on the part of the officers \u2014 weighed in favor of concluding the consent purged the taint of the unlawful detention). Accordingly, it was not error for the court to admit the results of his blood test.\u201d State v. Hilliard, 2021 N.H. LEXIS 164 (Oct. 29, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A volunteer fireman diving into defendant\u2019s car to keep him from driving away was a search and seizure. And, the community caretaking function did not apply. \u201cHere, Wahl lacked any specific and articulable facts that Fairrow would be dangerous to … Continue reading