Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com at 22:45, April 11, 2016

2016-04-11T22:45:04Z

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "
Of possible interest to those who do DUII cases.
:State next contends that exigent circumstances exists to justify the warrantless blood draws. T..."

2016-04-11T22:44:45Z

Created page with "<summary>Of possible interest to those who do DUII cases.</summary> :State next contends that exigent circumstances exists to justify the warrantless blood draws. T..."

New page

<summary>Of possible interest to those who do DUII cases.</summary>

:State next contends that exigent circumstances exists to justify the warrantless blood draws. This exception to the warrant requirement “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1558 (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011)). Applying that exception, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a warrantless blood draw in Schmerber when the officer reasonably believed that the delay involved in securing a warrant would result in the dissipation of alcohol i
n a driver’s blood. 384 U.S. at 772. Forty-seven years later, in McNeely, the Supreme Court
clarified Schmerber, holding that the natural metabolization of alcohol in the blood stream does not create a per se exigency justifying warrantless, nonconsensual blood testing in all DUI cases, though it is a relevant consideration in determining if exigent circumstances exist. 133 S. Ct. at 1568. Hence, “[a]fter McNeely, law enforcement officers [are] no longer categorically permitted to obtain a suspect’s blood sample with out a warrant simply because the alcohol [is] leaving the suspect’s blood stream.” Commonwealth v. Duncan, No. 2013-SC-000742-DG, 2015 WL 2266474, at *5 (Ky. May 14, 2015).

[http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2016/040416/5D14-1654.op.pdf ''Florida v Liles'']
{{wl-publish: 2016-04-11 15:44:45 -0700 | Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <summary>Of possible interest to those who do DUII cases.</summary>
-:State  next  contends  that  exigent  circumstances  exists  to  justify  the warrantless blood draws.  This exception to the warrant requirement “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”  McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1558 (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011)).  Applying that exception, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a warrantless blood draw in Schmerber when the officer reasonably believed that the delay involved in securing a warrant would result in the dissipation of alcohol i
+:State  next  contends  that  exigent  circumstances  exists  to  justify  the warrantless blood draws.  This exception to the warrant requirement “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”  McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1558 (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011)).  Applying that exception, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a warrantless blood draw in Schmerber when the officer reasonably believed that the delay involved in securing a warrant would result in the dissipation of alcohol in a driver’s blood.  384 U.S. at 772.  Forty-seven years later, in McNeely, the Supreme Court clarified Schmerber, holding that the natural metabolization of alcohol in the blood stream does not create a per se exigency justifying warrantless, nonconsensual blood testing in all DUI cases, though it is a relevant consideration in determining if exigent circumstances exist.  133 S.  Ct.  at  1568.    Hence,  “[a]fter  McNeely,  law  enforcement  officers  [are]  no  longer categorically  permitted to obtain a suspect’s  blood  sample with out a warrant simply because  the  alcohol  [is]  leaving the  suspect’s  blood  stream.”   Commonwealth  v. Duncan, No. 2013-SC-000742-DG, 2015 WL 2266474, at *5 (Ky. May 14, 2015).
-n a driver’s blood.  384 U.S. at 772.  Forty-seven years later, in McNeely, the Supreme Court
 clarified Schmerber, holding that the natural metabolization of alcohol in the blood stream does not create a per se exigency justifying warrantless, nonconsensual blood testing in all DUI cases, though it is a relevant consideration in determining if exigent circumstances exist.  133 S.  Ct.  at  1568.    Hence,  “[a]fter  McNeely,  law  enforcement  officers  [are]  no  longer categorically  permitted to obtain a suspect’s  blood  sample with out a warrant simply because  the  alcohol  [is]  leaving the  suspect’s  blood  stream.”   Commonwealth  v. Duncan, No. 2013-SC-000742-DG, 2015 WL 2266474, at *5 (Ky. May 14, 2015).
 [http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2016/040416/5D14-1654.op.pdf ''Florida v Liles'']
 {{wl-publish: 2016-04-11 15:44:45 -0700 | Ryan:Ryan  Scott  }}

Blog:Main/A Florida Court's Summary of McNeely - Revision history

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com at 22:45, April 11, 2016

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "Of possible interest to those who do DUII cases. :State next contends that exigent circumstances exists to justify the warrantless blood draws. T..."

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "
Of possible interest to those who do DUII cases.
:State next contends that exigent circumstances exists to justify the warrantless blood draws. T..."