 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Buchholz8/11/1999
timony does not support such a claim. With regard to the amount of time methamphetamine can be detected in urine, the officer testified he was unknowledgeable as to the length of time methamphetamine will stay in the urine but that it was "crucial you get the urine test right away."
Q: "Based on your [seventeen] years experience and your drug training, do you know how long methamphetamine will stay in urine?"
A: "No."
Q: "Is it crucial that you get the urine test right away?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "Do you know why that is?"
A: "Well, the sooner you get the urine test, you can get the results back and you can see how those results are [and then you] could determine previous to the time that they were stopped there might have been some usage."
...
Q: "[States attorney] asked you how long methamphetamine stays in the human body, and I believe your answer was that you don't know?"
A: "That's correct."
Further, according to the officer's testimony, when a person is arrested for methamphetamines, exigent circumstances automatically exist. On cross-examination, the officer stated:
Q: "And your exigent circumstance is that you weren't going to let her go until she produced a urine sample?"
A: "Yes."
Even the state's attorney, in her closing argument, acknowledges the length of time it takes methamphetamines to be metabolized by the body, "So we know that in the last 72 hours that the defendant used methamphetamine."
[ ] For exigent circumstances to exist, there must be evidence to support such a claim. This record is devoid of support for exigent circumstances. Without requiring such support, the term "exigent circumstances" is merely pretextual, becoming a blanket exception to the warrant requirement regardless of what crime the person is arrested for, or, the ability of law enforcement to obtain a warrant before evidence is destroyed. See State v. Flannigan, 978 P2d 127 (ArizAppDiv1 1998) (holding no exigent circumstances where police did not seek a warrant because they had been instructed that exigent circumstances always exist in vehicular manslaughter or aggravated assault cases where the person is suspected of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol).
[ ] Unlike the evanescent nature of blood alcohol levels, the presence of methamphetamine in urine can be detected for an extended period of time. United States v. Pond, 36 MJ 1050, 1058 (AFCMR 1993) ("We take judicial notice that urine tests indicates methamphetamine use some 24 to 48 hours after consumption of the drug."). Buchholz remained in police custody after her arrest for possession. Under such circumstances, the officer could have obtained, or at least sought, a warrant within this time frame without any risk of losing evidence of methamphetamine use.
[ ] "There are few activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of urine. Most people describe it by euphemisms if they talk about it at all. It is a function traditionally performed without public observation; indeed, its performance in public is generally prohibited by law as well as social custom." Rawlings v. Police Department of Jersey City, New Jersey, 133 NJ 182, 204-05, 627 A2d 602, 614 (NJ 1993) (O'Hern, Justice, Dissenting) (citing Skinner, 489 US at 617, 109 SCt at 1413, 103 LEd2d at 660 (quoting National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 816 F2d 170, 175 (1987))). "The interests in human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence be obtained." Schmerber, 384 US at 770, 86 SCt
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|