{"id":6611,"date":"2012-05-28T20:36:17","date_gmt":"2012-01-31T00:11:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-01-30T07:37:33","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6611","title":{"rendered":"UT: No REP vs testing for contraband of blood legitimately seized, applying Caballes<\/em> to blood testing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cabelles<\/a> essentially applies to blood already seized\u2013there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in blood already legitimately seized against testing for presence of contraband (here THC). State v. Price, 2012 UT 7, 2012 Utah App. LEXIS 28 (January 27, 2012):<\/p>\n

[**P12] Mr. Price certainly retained a legitimate privacy interest in the non-contraband contents of his blood. Testing Mr. Price’s blood for HIV status, DNA information, blood type, or other private medical facts therefore would have infringed upon a legitimate privacy interest. But that did not occur here. The THC test conducted on Mr. Price’s blood was limited to revealing only the blood’s THC contents, for which Mr. Price retains no legitimate privacy interest. Tests for contraband that cannot reveal details regarding legitimate privacy interests do not implicate Fourth Amendment protections. Caballes<\/a>, 543 U.S. at 408. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the use of “a well-trained narcotics-detection dog” to reveal the presence of narcotics during a routine traffic stop, because the use of drug sniffing dogs can disclose “only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item.” Id. at 409 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because testing Mr. Price’s blood for the presence of THC could not infringe on a legitimate privacy interest, the test is not subject to the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officer\u2019s observation of a bulge in defendant\u2019s groin area during a traffic stop and prior knowledge of defendant\u2019s possession of drugs and guns justified a patdown. United States v. Stennis<\/a>, 457 Fed. Appx. 494, 2012 FED App. 0093N (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6611","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6611"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6611\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}