Issue presented: application of statute regarding warrantless blood draws. November 2014
|
|
- Emory York
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 November 2014 Texas Law Enforcement Handbook Monthly Update is published monthly. Copyright P.O. Box 1261, Euless, TX No claim is made regarding the accuracy of official government works or copyright of same. Educational purposes only. Does not constitute legal advice. No reproduction outside TPCA membership without written consent. Court of Criminal Appeals COURT HOLDS THAT A NON- CONSENSUAL SEARCH OF A DWI SUSPECT S BLOOD CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE MANDATORY-BLOOD-DRAW AND IMPLIED-CONSENT PROVISIONS IN THE TRANSPORTATION CODE, WHEN UNDERTAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A WARRANT OR ANY APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT Issue presented: application of statute regarding warrantless blood draws. The defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated. The trial court granted the defendant s motion to suppress the evidence from the warrantless blood draw. The state filed an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, challenging the trial court s ruling. The Court affirmed the trial court s ruling. Officer P stopped the defendant for a traffic violation. During the stop P observed the defendant appeared intoxicated. Officer P contacted Officer W to perform a DWI investigation. W asked the defendant to perform standardized field sobriety tests and the defendant refused. The defendant was arrested and W advised him of his statutory warning regarding the giving of specimens. The defendant refused to provide a specimen and was then transported to a medical facility where the blood was drawn over defendant s objection. The police did not obtain a warrant prior to the blood draw. The case deals with the limited question of whether the blood draw, in this case, violated the Fourth Amendment. Originally the defendant had raised an argument that the implied consent statute was unconstitutional, but the defendant abandoned that argument on appeal. This opinion does not address the underlying constitutionality of the implied consent statute.
2 The Court of Criminal Appeals considered whether or not the mandatory blood draw provisions in section (b) of the Transportation Code created a constitutionally valid alternative to the warrant requirement. The Court of Criminal Appeals summed up the requirements of the statute as follows: Reading these provisions in conjunction, [section (b)] we observe that they establish a statutory scheme by which an individual who was arrested for an "ordinary" DWI that is, one that does not fall within any of the enumerated circumstances of section (b) has an absolute right to refuse to provide a specimen, notwithstanding the existence of implied consent But, if one of the aggravating circumstances described in section (b) is present, then, as the state observes, the statutory scheme appears to "extinguish" a suspect's right to refuse to submit a specimen under those specified circumstances Stated differently, if one of the aggravating circumstances is present, then, pursuant to the statute, even if the suspect refuses to comply, an officer has a mandatory duty to require that the suspect's blood be drawn. Because the dispute here centers on whether a warrantless, nonconsensual search of a DWI suspect s blood conducted pursuant to section (b) complies with the Constitution, we turn to review of the relevant Fourth Amendment principles. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the basic requirements of the Fourth Amendment regarding searches of persons: In general, to comply with the Fourth Amendment, a search of a person pursuant to a criminal investigation (1) requires a search warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, and (2) must be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Furthermore, of particular relevance to DWI cases, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Fourth Amendment is implicated in that (3) the collection of a suspect's blood invades a substantial privacy interest, and (4) the exigent circumstances exception to the search warrant requirement is not established merely by the natural dissipation of alcohol. **** Specifically, with respect to searches of people undertaken November
3 for the purpose of furthering a criminal investigation, the Supreme Court has determined that, in the absence of a search warrant, a "search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception" to the warrant requirement The recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement that the state suggests are implicated in the present case are the consent exception; the automobile exception; the search incident to arrest exception; and, the special needs doctrine. [Internal cites omitted Ed.]. A Understanding that the Supreme Court had already ruled that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream did not constitute an exigent circumstance that would waive the warrant requirement [the McNeely case Ed.], the state of Texas focused on other exceptions to the warrant requirement. Prior Waiver through Implied Consent Is Inapplicable: The state argued that by accepting a license, which is a privilege, a driver in the state of Texas has consented to a search of his person in the form of a blood draw in exchange for that privilege: On this basis, the state urges this Court to hold that, in light of the existence of the implied-consent in the mandatory blood draw provisions, a driver "impliedly agrees ahead of time that, in exchange for the privilege of driving on our roads, he is willing to waive the right to a warrant in these limited circumstances. The deal is sealed when he gets behind the wheel, and it can't later be revoked when he gets caught driving in an impaired condition." The Court pointed out that "an additional necessary element of valid consent is the ability to limit or revoke it." The Court went on to add: To the extent the state suggests that the implied consent and mandatory blood draw provisions in the Transportation Code categorically extinguish a DWI suspect s right to withdraw consent when some aggravating circumstances present, that suggestion cannot be squared with the requirement that, to be valid for Fourth Amendment purposes, consent must be freely and voluntarily given based on the totality of the November
4 circumstances, and must not have been revoked or withdrawn at the time of search In other words, implied consent that has been withdrawn or revoked by a suspect cannot serve as a substitute for the free and voluntary consent that the Fourth Amendment requires. The state recognized this problem with general consent rules for searches and offered up an alternative argument - the parallel exception : [The state] urges us to hold that a driver who accepts the privilege of driving on Texas roadways has, by virtue of his enjoyment of that privilege, lost the right to later revoke the implied consent supplied by the Transportation Code or to complain about the absence of a warrant. The state argued to the Court that the implied consent statute should be interpreted along the line of cases that established the "parallel exception" to the consent exception. The parallel exception is a line of cases that hold that a person may not withdraw a waiver of a constitutional right that was given in exchange for some benefit or privilege. The Court noted that this line of cases was applicable only to the federal regulatory context, the context of parolees and probationers, or a noncriminal context. Accordingly, the Court held that the parallel exception argument was not applicable in a case that involved a bodily search of an individual suspected of criminal wrongdoing, such as the instant case. The Automobile Exception Is Inapplicable: The state argued that the warrantless search of a DWI suspect s blood should be upheld under the automobile exception. The Court rejected that argument outright, stating "the automobile exception has been expressly limited to the vehicular search context It cannot be expanded to encompass a bodily search in the form of a compulsory blood draw of an individual." In other words, the driver of a motor vehicle cannot be searched in much the same way as any other container in his vehicle could be searched during the application of the automobile exception. The Special Needs Exception Is Inapplicable: The special needs exception is a very limited exception to the warrant requirement. It has been recognized in situations such as screening student athletes for drug use and compulsory testing of train engineers for drug and alcohol use. The history of this exception has been a limited application in situations when special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement make the warrant and November
5 probable cause requirement impracticable." The Court responded to this argument by the state: Here, we see no basis for holding that the governments need to conduct searches of DWI suspects blood constitutes a "special need" that would permit a departure from the probable cause and warrant requirement. The need here does not go "beyond the normal need for lawenforcement," nor does it "make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable." Furthermore, the Supreme Court has suggested that the special needs doctrine is inapplicable when the primary purpose of a search is to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes. Search Incident to Arrest Is Inapplicable: The state also argued that the search incident to arrest exception would apply in this situation. The Court noted that a search incident to arrest must be "substantially contemporaneous" with the arrest it is limited to the area within the immediate control of the arrestee. The justification for the search is twofold: (1) the need for officers to seize weapons or other things that might be used to assault an officer or facilitate an escape, and (2) the need to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence. The state argued that the dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream constitutes a "recognized exigency" that would justify applying the search incident to arrest exception. The Court stated that such a proposal would urge the adoption of a per se exigency rule, and such a rule has been expressly disavowed by the Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct 1552 (2013). [Which ruled that the dissipation of blood alcohol levels did not create an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless blood draw Ed.]. The Court, having considered, and discounted, the exceptions to the search warrant doctrine offered by the state, ruled that "a nonconsensual search of a DWI suspect s blood conducted pursuant to the mandatory blood draw and implied consent provisions in the Transportation Code, when undertaken in the absence of a warrant or any applicable exception to the warrant requirement violates the Fourth Amendment. State v. Villareal, NO. PD (Tex. Crim. App. 11/26/14) Commentary: Readers should note that this opinion did not hold that the mandatory blood draw statute is unconstitutional. However, this case does illustrate that the mandatory blood draw statute s effectiveness has been called into question. November
6 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE PROVIDES A DEFENSE TO PERSONS ACCUSED OF KILLING ANIMALS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES The appellant was charged with cruelty to non-livestock animals under Texas Penal Code section (b)(6). The appellant sought to raise the defenses found in section of the Health and Safety Code. The trial court did not allow the defense to be raised. The appellant challenged this decision on appeal and the court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court. The state appealed. The appellant and his wife were walking their dogs. Two dogs escaped from another back yard. One dog, Zeus, attacked the appellant s dog, grabbing it by the neck. The appellant and another neighbor tried for five minutes to get Zeus to let go of the dog. Zeus bit both the appellant and the neighbor during this encounter. Zeus finally released the dog. The appellant dragged Zeus to his house and tied the dog to a car bumper and then cut his throat. The police charged appellant with cruelty to non-livestock animals. The main issue was whether section of the Health and Safety Code comprised a defense to prosecution under the Penal Code. Section states: A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by: (1) any person witnessing the attack; or (2) the attacked animal s owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack. After reviewing the statute and its history, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that section does in fact create a defense to prosecution under section (b)(6) of the Penal Code. Chase v. State, NO. PD (Tex. Crim. App. 11/16/14) Texas Appellate Courts TAKEN AS A WHOLE OFFICER S OBSERVATIONS, COUPLED WITH HIS TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, WERE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED Issue presented: reasonable suspicion for traffic stop The appellant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. At trial, the appellant filed a motion to suppress. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and the appellant was convicted. The appellant brought this appeal to challenge the denial of the motion to suppress. November
7 At approximately 1 AM on July 12 Cpl. H was at a red light when he saw a vehicle approaching the intersection. He estimated the vehicle was speeding at that time but he was unable to confirm the speed of the vehicle. Before reaching the intersection the vehicle rapidly braked in a way that Cpl. H described as not a normal slowdown better" and as an "overcompensation in braking." He also noticed the drivers door was not completely closed. Cpl. H followed the vehicle for about a half a mile. He wants the vehicle drastically change speeds couple of times and then dramatically slow down. He also testified that the vehicle swerved and touched the center-line several times. Based on these observations Cpl. H stopped the vehicle and ultimately arrested the driver for DWI. The appellant challenged the trial court's decision to deny her motion to suppress. The appellant contends that the trial court should have suppressed Cpl. H's testimony "because he lacked a reasonable suspicion that she was breaking the law prior to pulling her over." The court reviewed the law applicable to temporary detentions: An officer conducts a lawful temporary detention when he has reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is violating the law Reasonable suspicion exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer has specific, articulable facts that when combined with rational inferences from those facts would lead the officer to reasonably conclude that a particular person is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. [Internal cites omitted Ed.]. The court then reviewed the facts of this case to determine if there were sufficient facts and circumstances to justify the traffic stop. The court began by stating, "Texas courts have held that an officer is justified in pulling over a vehicle if the circumstances, taken as a whole, could reasonably lead to the conclusion that the driver is intoxicated." Additionally, the court pointed out, "In totality-of-thecircumstances inferences, Texas courts may factor an officer's experience recognizing intoxication through certain driving patterns." The court pointed out the following facts and circumstances that were available to Cpl. H: (1) the stop occurred at 1 AM and officers "may heighten their suspicions when they observe unusual driving behavior late at night"; (2) the unusual braking behavior displayed by the driver of the vehicle; (3) the slow speed and inconsistent speed of the vehicle; (4) the driver side November
8 door appeared unlatched; (5) Cpl. H had 15 years experience as a peace officer; and, (6) Cpl. H had a Masters degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice. The court concluded that, "Taken as a whole, these factors support an objective justification for the stop [to investigate a possible DWI]." The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. Brown v. State, NO CR (Tex. App. Fort Worth, 11/20/14)(not designated for publication) November
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0306-14 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. DAVID VILLARREAL, Appellee ON STATE S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS NUECES COUNTY
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00153-CR The State of Texas, Appellant v. Marguerite Foreman, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO.
More informationDWI Bond Conditions. TJCTC Webinar. Thea Whalen Executive Director Texas Justice Court Training Center
DWI Bond Conditions TJCTC Webinar Thea Whalen Executive Director Texas Justice Court Training Center Scope of the Problem In 2013, 1,089 people died in alcohol-related crashes in Texas; this represents
More informationIn the Third Court of Appeals Austin, Texas ROBERT TORRES, Appellant, STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 03~14-00541-CR ACCEPTED 03-14-00541-CR 4106716 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/11/2015 11:56:26 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK In the Third Court of Appeals Austin, Texas FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS
More informationUS SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT LAW REGARDING ENTRY ONTO PROPERTY IS NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF DENYING AN OFFICER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
November 2013 Texas Law Enforcement Handbook Monthly Update is published monthly. Copyright 2013. P.O. Box 1261, Euless, TX 76039. No claim is made regarding the accuracy of official government works or
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CR-1890-2015 v. : : GARY STANLEY HELMINIAK, : PRETRIAL MOTION Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER
More informationTEXARKANA, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS MANUAL. TPCA Best Practices Recognition Program Reference Searches Without a Warrant
Effective Date February 1, 2008 Reference Amended Date Distribution All Personnel City Manager City Attorney TPCA Best Practices Recognition Program Reference Review Date January 1, 2012 Pages 5 This Operations
More informationBLOOD TESTS SINCE MCNEELY by Walter I. Butch Jenkins III Thigpen and Jenkins, LLP. Biscoe, NC INTRODUCTION
BLOOD TESTS SINCE MCNEELY by Walter I. Butch Jenkins III Thigpen and Jenkins, LLP. Biscoe, NC INTRODUCTION Defending a driving while impaired case is a daunting task in itself. When the State has a blood
More informationImplied Consent Testing & the Fourth Amendment
Implied Consent Testing & the Fourth Amendment Shea Denning School of Government November 2015 What exactly is an implied consent offense anyway? A person charged with such an offense may be required (pursuant
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015 Remanded by the Supreme Court November 22, 2016
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015 Remanded by the Supreme Court November 22, 2016 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER WILSON Interlocutory Appeal
More informationBIRCHFIELD V. NORTH DAKOTA: WARRANTLESS BREATH TESTS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
BIRCHFIELD V. NORTH DAKOTA: WARRANTLESS BREATH TESTS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SARA JANE SCHLAFSTEIN INTRODUCTION In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 1 the United States Supreme Court addressed privacy concerns
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : STACEY LANE, : : Appellant : No. 884 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued October 1, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00975-CR STEVE OLIVARES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law
More informationREGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS
May 2015 Texas Law Enforcement Handbook Monthly Update is published monthly. Copyright 2015. P.O. Box 1261, Euless, TX 76039. No claim is made regarding the accuracy of official government works or copyright
More informationSTATE V. GANT: DEPARTING FROM THE BRIGHT-LINE BELTON RULE IN AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST
STATE V. GANT: DEPARTING FROM THE BRIGHT-LINE BELTON RULE IN AUTOMOBILE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST Holly Wells INTRODUCTION In State v. Gant, 1 the Arizona Supreme Court, in a 3 to 2 decision, held that
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00016-CR The State of Texas, Appellant v. Tri Minh Tran, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. C-1-CR-11-215115,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ERNEST P. PEPIN. Argued: March 21, 2007 Opinion Issued: May 1, 2007
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00602-CV Texas Department of Public Safety, Appellant v. Evan Grant Botsford, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF HAYS COUNTY NO.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Julie Negovan, : Appellant : : v. : : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : No. 200 C.D. 2017 Bureau of Driver Licensing : Submitted:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 5/16/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Crim. No. B283857 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationAPPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse County: RAMONA A. GONZALEZ, Judge. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 21, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 14, 2013
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 14, 2013 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSHUA LYNN PITTS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. M67716 David
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- CASEY WELBORN, v. Petitioner,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. MARCUS LEE HOLMQUIST, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed February 5, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01388-CR MARCUS LEE HOLMQUIST, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the
More informationBLOOD WARRANTS & CHILDREN
1 BLOOD WARRANTS & CHILDREN I DON T WANT TO DEAL WITH A BLOOD SEARCH WARRANT ON A CHILD CCP Art. 2.10 Duty of Magistrates. It is duty of EVERY magistrate to preserve the peace within his jurisdiction by
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
THIRD DIVISION ANDREWS, P. J., DILLARD and MCMILLIAN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely
More informationIN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I. ---o0o--
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I ---o0o-- STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARD NICELOTI-VELAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant NO. CAAP-15-0000373 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : vs. : No. 966-CR-2014 : CATHRYN J. PORAMBO, : : Defendant : Cynthia Dydra-Hatton, Esquire
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0793-13T1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : vs. : No. 816-CR-2015 : JEFFREY RAIL, : Defendant : Jean Engler, Esquire District Attorney
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-02-00373-CR Raymond Edwards, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. 573,648, HONORABLE
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-15-673 MATTHEW AARON BURR APPELLANT V. Opinion Delivered March 30, 2016 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2014-1499-1] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
More information1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: October 5, NO. S-1-SC STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: October 5, 2017 4 NO. S-1-SC-36197 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Petitioner, 7 v. 8 LARESSA VARGAS, 9 Defendant-Respondent.
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 November Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 September 2013
NO. COA14-390 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 November 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 63608 MATTHEW SMITH SHEPLEY Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 September
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2017-NMSC-029 Filing Date: October 5, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-36197 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner, LARESSA VARGAS, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationCommonwealth v. Glick -- No Knisely, J. March 5, 2014 Criminal Evidence Suppression DUI Non-investigable offenses.
Commonwealth v. Glick -- No. 3218-2013 Knisely, J. March 5, 2014 Criminal Evidence Suppression DUI Non-investigable offenses. Defendant s suppression motion denied where officer saw vehicle abruptly change
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 32,270
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 17, 2018 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 17, 2018 Session 02/20/2018 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BENJAMIN TATE BROWN Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. F-76199
More informationNo In The. Supreme Court of the United States. Joseph Wayne Hexom, State of Minnesota, On Petition for A Writ of Certiorari
No. 15-1052 In The Supreme Court of the United States Joseph Wayne Hexom, Petitioner, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent. On Petition for A Writ of Certiorari BRIEF IN OPPOSITION JENNIFER M. SPALDING Counsel
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: E. THOMAS KEMP STEVE CARTER Richmond, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2068 September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Kehoe, Shaw Geter, JJ. Opinion by Shaw Geter, J. Filed: September
More informationNH DIVISION OF LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT AND LICENSING ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS MANUAL
NH DIVISION OF LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT AND LICENSING ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS MANUAL CHAPTER: O-411 SUBJECT: Searches Without A Warrant REVISED: February 9, 2010 Review EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 2009 DISTRIBUTION:
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-10-00151-CR RANDI DENISE BRAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 5th Judicial District Court Cass
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELLIOT ROJAS. DUI Traffic Stop -Suppression Reasonable Suspicion
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELLIOT ROJAS DUI Traffic Stop -Suppression Reasonable Suspicion 1. The Defendant is charged with driving under the influence, possession of marijuana---small amount, and
More informationv No Kent Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 17, 2017 v No. 333827 Kent Circuit Court JENNIFER MARIE HAMMERLUND, LC
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, * * * * * * * *
-a-lsw 2012 S.D. 28 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, v. RYAN LEE RADEMAKER, Plaintiff and Appellee, Defendant and Appellant. MARTY J. JACKLEY Attorney General APPEAL
More informationDELMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT
DELMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT Policy 7.4 Searches Without a Warrant Effective Date: 05/01/15 Replaces: 2-5 Approved: Ivan Barkley Chief of Police Reference: DPAC: 1.2.3 I. POLICY In order to ensure that constitutional
More informationFROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed his conviction in the
PRESENT: All the Justices DEMETRIUS D. BALDWIN OPINION BY JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061264 June 8, 2007 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Demetrius D. Baldwin appeals
More informationENTRY ORDER 2007 VT 43 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO MARCH TERM, 2007
State v. Chicoine (2005-529) 2007 VT 43 [Filed 24-May-2007] ENTRY ORDER 2007 VT 43 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-529 MARCH TERM, 2007 State of Vermont } APPEALED FROM: } } v. } District Court of Vermont,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 1, 2015 Session Remanded by the Supreme Court, March 8, 2017
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 1, 2015 Session Remanded by the Supreme Court, March 8, 2017 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HELKIE NATHAN CARTER Appeal from the Criminal Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 10, 2016 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 10, 2016 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. FREDDIE ALI BELL Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County No. 24211 Robert L. Jones, Judge No.
More informationMINNESOTA V. DICKERSON United States Supreme Court 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)
MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON United States Supreme Court 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) In this case, the Supreme Court considers whether the seizure of contraband detected through a police
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS. Judgment Rendered June
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 KA 2009 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ll n MATTHEW G L CONWAY Judgment Rendered June 6 2008 Appealed from the 18th Judicial District Court In and for
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 9, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 9, 2009 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM R. COOK Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. I-CR092865 Robbie T. Beal,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Eric Sinns, CASE NO.: 2016-CA-977-O v. Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2009-NMSC-043 Filing Date: August 25, 2009 Docket No. 31,106 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner, NICOLE ANAYA, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS Nos. PD 0287 11, PD 0288 11 CRYSTAL MICHELLE WATSON and JACK WAYNE SMITH, Appellants v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON APPELLANTS PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM
More informationIN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, CR DISTRICT II STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JOANNE SEKULA,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, 2001 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More information5. Pursuit... 2:25 6. High Speed Chases... 2:26 III. IDENTIFICATIONS... 3:1 A. In-Person Identifications... 3:1 1. Right to Have Counsel Present...
CONTENTS I. PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS MANUAL... 1:1 II. THE POLICE-CITIZEN ENCOUNTER... 2:1 A. Police Activities That Require No Evidence of Wrongdoing... 2:2 1. Routine Patrol... 2:2 2. The Consensual Encounter...
More informationPOLICE TRAFFIC STOPS & HOW SHOULD YOU ACT? WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS. Special Report Handling A Police Traffic Stop
POLICE TRAFFIC STOPS WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS & HOW SHOULD YOU ACT? Special Report Handling A Police Traffic Stop Know your rights When can your car be searched? How to conduct yourself during a traffic stop
More informationWelcome to the MHI Webinar Federal and State Laws Related to Blood Draws and Requests from Law Enforcement
Welcome to the MHI Webinar Federal and State Laws Related to Blood Draws and Requests from Law Enforcement All Lines will be muted. The webinar is listen only mode. If you have questions, please contact
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) NO. 67147-2-I Respondent/ ) Cross-Appellant, ) DIVISION ONE ) v. ) ) JUAN LUIS LOZANO, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant/ ) FILED:
More informationa) The entry is limited in purpose and scope to discovery of a number as to which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy;
Crestwood Police General Order Warrantless Vehicle Searches Purpose: The purpose of this directive is to provide general guidelines and procedures for commissioned personnel to follow in conducting vehicle
More informationOPINION ON REHEARING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 111,698. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, DAVID LEE RYCE, Appellee.
OPINION ON REHEARING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 111,698 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. DAVID LEE RYCE, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025 is facially unconstitutional.
More informationNo. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The State has the burden of proving that a search and seizure was
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,844 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ERNEST MARTINEZ, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,844 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ERNEST MARTINEZ, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court; TRISH
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BROCK JORDAN WILLIAMS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2018. Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO.: SC STATE OF FLORIDA, DCA case no.: 5D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LORENZO GOLPHIN, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC03-554 STATE OF FLORIDA, DCA case no.: 5D02-1848 Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS STATE'S REPLY BRIEF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT NO. 05-10-00519-CR V. KATHRYN LYNN TURNER, APPELLEE APPEALED FROM CAUSE NUMBER M10-51379 IN THE COUNTY
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARRYL J. LEINART, II Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson County No. A3CR0294 James
More informationVideo Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,242 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,242 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SEAN ALLEN STECKLINE, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Ellis District
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,956 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. KIMBERLY WHITE, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,956 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS KIMBERLY WHITE, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Barton District
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009 :
[Cite as State v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-5927.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO PREBLE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-02-005 : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009
More informationIN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED May 11, AP1257 DISTRICT II NO. 2010AP1256-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 11, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More information2018 PA Super 280 : : : : : : : : :
2018 PA Super 280 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. SARAH JEANNE BERGAMASCO IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 471 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Order February 28, 2018 In the Court of Common
More informationAffirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
134 Nev., Advance Opinion 25 IN THE THE STATE THE STATE, Appellant, vs. GREGORY FRANK ALLEN SAMPLE, A/K/A GREGORY F.A. SAMPLE, Respondent. No. 71208 FILED APR 0 5 2018 r* i're 0 I, E BROWN I. RI BY w j
More information2018 PA Super 72 : : : : : : : : :
2018 PA Super 72 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY TRAHEY Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 730 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NO. CAAP-12 12-0000858 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000858 12-AUG-2013 02:40 PM STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOSHUA A. BOUTIN. Argued: October 21, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationCOVINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
COVINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Subject: SEARCH AND SEIZURE Date of Issue: 01-01-1999 Number of Pages: 6 Policy No. P220 Review Date: 06-01-2007 Distribution: Departmental Revision
More informationNO CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
NO. 12-14-00190-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT V. ALMA MUNOZ GHAFFER, APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,576 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, TRAE D. REED, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,576 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. TRAE D. REED, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Reno District Court;
More information2015 PA Super 231 OPINION BY WECHT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 06, The Commonwealth appeals the trial court s August 11, 2014 order.
2015 PA Super 231 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JIHAD IBRAHIM Appellee No. 3467 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Order of August 11, 2014 In the Court of Common
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. 0306-14 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. DAVID VILLARREAL, Appellee ON STATE S MOTION FOR REHEARING FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS NUECES COUNTY NEWELL, J. filed
More informationsample obtained from the defendant on the basis that any consent given by the
r STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION Docket No. CR-16-222 STATE OF MAINE v. ORDER LYANNE LEMEUNIER-FITZGERALD, Defendant Before the court is defendant's motion to suppress evidence
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1384 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JEFFREY R. GILLIAM,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,900 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSEPH E. THAYER, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,900 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSEPH E. THAYER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court;
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00365-CR Tony Keith Wells, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF BELL COUNTY NO. 2C08-00902, HONORABLE
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: April 10, NOS. 33,312 and 33,701 (consolidated)
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: April 10, 2017 4 NOS. 33,312 and 33,701 (consolidated) 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellant, 7 v. 8 BRADFORD
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 18, 2014 v No. 317502 Washtenaw Circuit Court THOMAS CLINTON LEFREE, LC No. 12-000929-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 7, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 7, 2014 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MELVIN BROWN Interlocutory Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 13-00735 W. Mark Ward,
More informationCASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE TERRY Casebolt and Webb, JJ., concur. Announced: May 1, 2008
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1051 Douglas County District Court No. 03CR691 Honorable Thomas J. Curry, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Brett
More informationSUPERIOR COURT DIVISION. to N.C.G.S. 15A-954 and 15A-972 et. al. (2010) to dismiss all charges in the abovereferenced
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION File Number: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ) ) v. ) MOTION TO SUPRESS RESULTS ) OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS DEFENDANT NAME,
More information[J ] [MO: Wecht, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : DISSENTING OPINION
[J-94-2016] [MO Wecht, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. DARRELL MYERS, Appellee No. 7 EAP 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,451 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,451 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. NORMAN VINSON CLARDY, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Shawnee District
More information