Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 5771 - 5780 of 81672 for order for a biological sample for drug testing.

[PDF] “Aftercare, relapse prevention and continuing care”: Applying research findings to practice
% reported serious drug use. Twenty-nine percent actually tested positive. (MADCE) o Forty percent
/courts/programs/problemsolving/docs/aftercarerelapseprevention.pdf - 2021-09-23

[PDF] State v. Scott A. Clemons
of multiple drug charges. He claims the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. We disagree
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=5571 - 2017-09-19

State v. Scott A. Clemons
convicting him of multiple drug charges. He claims the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5571 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] State v. Charles E. Snodgrass
and an order of the circuit court for Wood County: DUANE POLIVKA, Judge. Affirmed. Before Dykman
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4163 - 2017-09-20

[PDF] WI App 100
to a voicemail message left at about 4:40 a.m. by an anonymous caller who reported an “active drug complaint
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=122771 - 2014-11-11

[PDF] WI APP 5
Dumstrey, and that Dumstrey was swaying back and forth. Dumstrey refused to perform field sobriety tests
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=131964 - 2017-09-21

State v. Derrick Wilder
moved what the officers thought was a gun from one pocket to another. II. In reviewing an order granting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10563 - 2005-03-31

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
sobriety tests. ¶4 Once out of his vehicle, Argall “kept putting his hands in his pockets.”3 Because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=304215 - 2020-11-18

[PDF] CA Blank Order
has entered the following opinion and order: 2017AP265-CRNM 2017AP266-CRNM State
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=207120 - 2018-01-17

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
omitted). Reasonable suspicion is a commonsense, nontechnical test. State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶19
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=250652 - 2019-11-27