State v. Miebach

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• distinguishing Mepham on the basis that the affidavit contained additional relevant facts, including two recent occasions on which the affiant was present when the defendant was arrested for crimes involving controlled substances
• under facts of the case, court found it unnecessary to decide whether 180-day period begins to run on date request is sent or on date request is received

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).