Supreme Court Cases: Birchfield V. Levi

In Nece, the Kansas Supreme Court held that breath-alcohol test results should be suppressed when the iImplied cConsent aAdvisory provided to the defendant inaccurately included the warning that the defendant could be criminally charged under K.S.A. § 8-1025 for refusing to submit to the testing. In Nece, after the defendant was arrested

[A] Absolutely, the reasonable suspicion of Deputy Sanderson was sufficient enough to expand a lawful traffic stop regarding the burnout headlight of the defendant’s vehicle. When Deputy Sanderson approached the Petitioner Mr. Haverford, it was completely a different story. By observing the defendant himself, Deputy Sanderson suspected that the defendant was under the influence of some kind of drugs. The reason why is because the defendant was extremely nervous. It is understandable to be nervous when to pull over by an officer but in this case it was not. The way the hands of the defendant were shaking is one clue. Plus the defendant upper body was shaking abnormally, clue number two. And finally, Deputy Sanderson took a good look at the defendant eyes and he realized the eyes were restricted [page 4], clue number three.

On 6-5-2016 Edwin Roger was stop for speeding (51/35). Upon speaking with Edwin an odor of an alcoholic beverage was detected from his breath. Edwin agreed to conduct a field sobriety test. There were several indicators during the Field sobriety test to lead me to believe Edwin had consumed an alcoholic beverage. Edwin admitted to consuming some alcoholic beverages before operating a vehicle. Edwin was transported to Madison Township police department to preform the BAC test. Edwin's test results were .153. Edwin was arrested for 4511.19A(1)A and 4511.A(1)D. Edwin was transported to Lake county jail and given a court date of 6-7-2016.

Harrison’s main argument was that Harrison’s rights were violated before the cocaine was found. The judge agreed that the officer violated section 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom. The judge acknowledged that Harrison was being arbitrarily detained and that the police officer unreasonably searched the vehicle. Despite Harrison’s rights being violated, the judge refused to exclude the drugs found in the car (breaking section 24(2)) claiming that even though Harrison’s rights were denied, it “pales in comparison to the criminality involved in the possession for the purposes of distribution of 77 pounds of cocaine.” In the end, Harrison was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. Harrison decided to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The judge also acknowledged that the Harrison’s rights were violated. Nonetheless, the result was the same as he was still convicted.

At 0216 hours on Thursday, June 25, 2015 your AFFIANT was on patrol in the area of E. Lloyd St. and N. Emerick St. While at a standing position at the stop sign your AFFIANT observed a blue Chevrolet Cavalier traveling North on N. Emerick St. After the Cavalier passed your AFFIANT could smell a strong odor of marijuana. Your AFFIANT mentioned it to Captain Michael ONEILL about it. ONEILL stated “I can smell it to”.

You have asked me to analyze the circumstances surrounding our client, Holden Caulfield’s arrest on drug charges to determine if the evidence seized in the arrest is subject to the exclusionary rule. I am to examine three aspects of the traffic stop and arrest, the initial stop, the extension of the stop, and the details surrounding the consent to search given by Mr. Caulfield.

We do know the officer was dispatched to the scene at 5:50 PM and the test occurred at 7:15 PM. In this situation, two hours hadn’t even passed since the officer knew of the incident, though possibly two hours from the Respondent driving. However, pursuant to Boom and Stumpf, as long as a request for the test is made within a reasonable time and the test occurs within two hours of that time, there should be no issue presented by these facts. In my opinion, the officer requested the test within a reasonable time from being dispatched to the scene, just over an hour after being dispatched. It is difficult to say with certainty based on these facts what occurred. While we do not need the law enforcement officer to be present at the hearing, see C.R.S. § 42-2-126(8)(a)(II), we do need the officer to submit all required documents and affidavit mandated by § 42-2-126(5)(a). For blood or breath tests administered to a driver suspected of drunk driving to be admissible in administrative proceedings regarding revocation of a driver's license, the tests must be “administered in accordance with health department rules and regulations.”  Brewer v. Motor Vehicle Div., Dept. of Revenue, 720 P.2d 564, 568 (Colo. 1986).

While transporting Mr. Baumchen to the Genesee County Jail he voluntarily made the statement that he was an alcoholic. He stated that he had been arrested for drunk driving before. Mr. Baumchen voluntarily made the statement that the last time he was arrested he was so drunk that the staff asked how he could be still standing. He stated that he wasn’t a baby doll. Mr. Baumchen also made the statement he drinks every day, it helps him sleep because he work third shift. Mr. Baumchen also made that statement the he wasn’t driving that he was attempting to get his truck unstuck.

The Court found that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to Miranda warnings regardless of the severity of the offense. However, we refuse to adopt McCarty’s argument every detained motorist must be advised of his rights. Questioning at a traffic stop is different from stationhouse interrogation and is more in line with a Terry stop. Nothing in the record indicates McCarty should have been given Miranda warnings prior to being placed under arrest.

Good case, Nolan had every right to frisk Wardlow after he fled the scene. Wardlow shows signs of guilt and suspicion. Wardlow did have a gun on him. In this incident Officer Nolan had every right to pat down Wardlow, for his safety after all Wardlow had already showed sign of guilt by fleeing when he saw the officers. On the other hand if Wardlow had nothing to hide why did he ran in the first place? Officer Nolan did had reasonable suspicion to frisk Wardlow after he fled in efforts to get away from the officers. Great the court was in favor of Officer Nolan and stated that he did not violate the Fourth amendment right against unreasonable

As I read this case, I have a hard time suppressing the evidence. So far we had learn about stop and frisk, exclusionary rule, arrest, and entrapment. With that said I do not think that the search the officer conducted was a violation and the search was reasonable. My reason is that if we apply the stop and frisk the officer is allowed to do a limited pat-down search of any citizen acting suspiciously. Under the stop and frisk the officer only need to have reasonable suspicion I believe that the open container of alcohol was enough probable cause for the officer to conduct a limited search of the subject by talking to subject along the officer cannot be 100 percent sure that the person is not arm. Applying the Robinson rule in this case it

The Supreme Court has decided to discuss if drivers refusing to be tested for drunk driving can be a crime in a state or not. Defendants in these cases state that it violates the search and seizure within the Fourth Amendment, as it is unreasonable, as they said. In some places one can even face a sentence of three-seven years for merely refusal to be tested, even if they themselves were never actually convicted of drunk driving. The need for review in this case appears to be important, as even the justices currently have opinions that go against the others.

According to the Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, there were more than 23,000 people arrested for driving under the influence in 2014. The cornerstone of many DUI cases is breath test results. Under the state’s implied consent law, the authorities may use such tests in order to determine the blood alcohol content level of motorists who they believe were drinking and driving. Overcoming the results of these tests may seem insurmountable, however, there are some situations in which breath tests may be deemed inadmissible.

On July 2013, it was 5am in the morning when two police officers pulled over Mr A while driving from his night shift to home. They instructed him to come out from his car. One of the police officer asked Mr A to provide his driving License. He provided him with his driving license. After that he asked them if he was free to go. Mr A said they refused to answer him. But throw another question at him. He said the other officer asked where he was driving to. He told him he was driving to work. They

Example: A police officer stops a car for speeding. The driver hasn't been drinking or using any type of drugs, and she's given the officer no reason to believe that she's driving while drunk or impaired. The officer asks for consent to search the trunk of the car, but the driver refuses to let him. The officer then orders her out of the car and he searches the inside of the car and the trunk. He finds marijuana in the trunk, and he arrests the driver for drug possession.