\u201cAlthough the warrant did not specifically state that the blood was to be \u2018tested,\u2019 \u2018analyzed,\u2019 or \u2018examined\u2019 for such intoxicants, a logical, commonsense reading of the warrant shows that the warrant was meant to authorize such analysis because an intoxicating substance cannot be found in blood unless the blood is tested. Therefore, we conclude that the search warrant authorized the taking and analysis of the Defendant’s blood.\u201d State v. Arora, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 573 (Dec. 23, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers lawfully approached defendant\u2019s vehicle parked partly on the sidewalk. They didn\u2019t have to just issue a parking ticket. United States v. Howard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231999 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 23, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an R&R, the USMJ holds that there\u2019s no showing for a Franks hearing, and defendant should prevail on the motion to suppress because of a lack of probable cause. United States v. Holloman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232139 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 20, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAlthough the warrant did not specifically state that the blood was to be \u2018tested,\u2019 \u2018analyzed,\u2019 or \u2018examined\u2019 for such intoxicants, a logical, commonsense reading of the warrant shows that the warrant was meant to authorize such analysis because an intoxicating … Continue reading