Our office continues to operate during our regular business hours, which are 8:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday, but you can call the office 24 hours a day. We continue to follow all recommendations and requirements of the State of Emergency Stay at Home Order. Consultations are available via telephone or by video conference. The safety of our clients and employees is of the utmost importance and, therefore, in-person meetings are not available at this time except for emergencies or absolutely essential legal services.
Charlotte DWI Lawyer Brad Smith answers the question: “Can the police search my car without a warrant?”
James Lee Johnson was indisputably impaired as he drove to his Hendersonville, North Carolina home one night in February of 2013. He blew a 0.13 on the blood alcohol test the police officer gave him—well above the legal 0.08 limit. The officer testified later that Johnson’s face was red, he was glassy-eyed and his speech was slurred. So how did Johnson just defeat a DWI rap?
Charlotte DWI and Criminal Defense Attorney J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can the police search my car without a warrant?”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently issued a long-awaited opinion concerning the constitutionality of the state’s implied consent law. The Appeals Court affirmed the law, holding that a warrantless breath test qualifies as a valid search so long as it is connected to a lawful arrest.
Charlotte DWI and Criminal Defense Attorney J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Are breath test results always accurate?”
You thought it was July 4th weekend? You’re right, but it’s also “No Refusal Weekend” in Eugene, Oregon. Local and state police in Eugene plan to have prosecutors and judges on standby this weekend to obtain “blood draw warrants” against drivers who refuse to submit to alcohol content testing.
This will prevent “people from avoiding full accountability,” police said. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in a 2013 case that police must obtain a warrant before drawing a person’s blood, except in cases of emergency. That case was called Missouri v. McNeely.
The program in Eugene is unique because, evidently, prosecutors and magistrates will be available to issue warrants quickly. The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union gave its blessing to the arrangement; a representative said more warrants in blood-draw cases was a “good thing.”
This could be the dawn of the age of warrants en masse, as litigation in the wake of the McNeely decision may show. Many people consent to blood draws. Lawyers are now arguing that McNeely requires courts to consider whether, in the totality of the circumstances, consensual blood draws done without a warrant are constitutional.